Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 26th March, 1964, for the Easter Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Percy Lawrence Wells, esquire, Member for Faversham, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SHELL COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA BILL

SHELL COMPANY OF EGYPT BILL

TEES CONSERVANCY BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

NORFOLK ESTUARY BILL

As amended, considered, to be read the Third time.

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

STAFFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

CHESHIRE BRINE PUMPING (COMPENSA-
TION FOR SUBSIDENCE) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (by Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Wednesday 15th April.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Private Firms (Government Contracts)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he considers it inappropriate to include in Government contracts a condition that the private firms fulfilling them should make no inquiry into the religion of applicants for employment.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster-General (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Because to do so would be to introduce questions of religious faith and conscience into commercial relations between Government Departments and industry. To do so would raise not only large questions of principle, which in my view ought not to be dealt with by a sidewind, but also immense practical difficulties.

Mr. Brockway: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is exactly what is happening now and that certain firms are demanding to know the religious faith of applicants for posts? Is he also aware that in areas of religious tension this causes great misgivings and—and I ask him to pay particular attention to this—that the firms involved are now prepared to consider this practice? Would he use his influence in order to end it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That question is quite different from that on the Order Paper. It is not for me to comment on the practice concerned, but it is my view that it would not make for an easy solution, of what I agree to be a very difficult matter, to condemn those who would otherwise be employees of this firm to unemployment in order to deal with this practice.

Germany (Support Costs)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what agreement has been reached with the Federal Government of Germany on the subject of support costs.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: By the end of last month the Federal Government had completed payments of 1,200 million deutschemarks to the United Kingdom over a two-year period, principally under contracts for military procurement, and had therefore fully implemented the agreement negotiated in 1962 by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary.
I had a preliminary discussion of the question of a further agreement in this field with Dr. Dahlgruen, the Federal German Minister of Finance, during his visit to London on 16th–17th March, and I hope to visit Bonn in the near future with a view to the conclusion of a new agreement.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the purpose of meeting his opposite number from the West German Government? Was it to bring about a reduction in support costs? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that we are paying about £80 million in support costs, which is far too great a burden for this country to assume? If the West German Government are not prepared to make a further contribution to support costs, why not withdraw some of our troops from Germany?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There were two purposes in my discussions with the German Minister: first, to secure that arrangements were made—and as my Answer indicates they successfully were—for the full implementation of the agreement negotiated by my right hon. Friend two years ago, and, secondly, preliminary discussions with a view to an agreement for the future.
The wider questions to which the right hon. Gentleman refers are, I think, much more matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Surtax

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the various Surtax rates operating in 1951 which resulted in a Treasury revenue of £124,900,000 in 1951; what were the Surtax rates in 1963 which gave a return to the Treasury of revenue of £174,100,000; and what was the amount of income liable to Surtax in 1951, and in 1963, respectively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Do not the figures show that, proportionately, the wealthier sections of the population have benefited much more than the poorer sections with regard to the payment of Income Tax?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the hon. Gentleman studies the somewhat complicated table of figures, I very much doubt whether he will come to that conclusion.

Mr. Joy: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give a brief summary of his Answer, as his hon. Friend did to the previous Question?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the right hon. Gentleman, for all his familiarity with these figures, studies them, he will appreciate why the answer to that question is in the negative.

Following are the figures:
Because Surtax for a particular year is charged and becomes payable in the next year, the Surtax receipts in 1951 and in 1963 came mainly from Surtax charged for 1949–50 and 1961–62 respectively; but they included some Surtax for earlier years.

The Surtax rates for 1949–50 and 1961–62 are shown in the following table:—


Slice of surtaxable income*
1949–50
1961–62


First £2,000
Nil
Nil


£2,000–£2,500
2s.
0d.
2s.
0d.


£2,500–£3,000
2s.
6d.
2s.
6d.


£3,000–£4,000
3s.
6d.
3s.
6d.


£4,000–£5,000
4s.
6d.
4s.
6d.


£5,000–£6,000
5s.
6d.
5s.
6d.


£6,000–£8,000
6s.
6d.
6s.
6d.


£8,000–£10,000
7s.
6d.
7s.
6d.


£10,000–£12,000
8s.
6d.
8s.
6d.


£12,000–£15,000
9s.
6d.
9s.
6d.


£15,000–£20,000
10s.
0d.
10s.
0d.


Over £20,000
10s.
6d.
10s.
0d.


* In arriving at the income subject to Surtax deductions from the taxpayer's total income were allowable for 1961–62 on account of (a) certain personal allowances due to him, to the extent that they exceeded the basic single person's allowance, and (b) the Surtax reliefs for earned incomes due under the reforms introduced by my rt. hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in the Finance Act 1961, i.e., the earned income relief deduction and the special Surtax "earnings allowance" due in certain cases; these were not allowable for 1949–50.

The answer to the last part of the Question is £960 million (for 1949–50) and £1,200 million (for 1961–62).

Income Tax

Mr. Longden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of income was the Income Tax paid in 1951 and 1963 by a single man, a man with a wife and one child of school age, and a man with a wife and two children, respectively, whose total income, all earned, was £250 a year, £400 a year, £680 a year, £1,000 a year, £1,500 a year, and £1,999 a year, respectively.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): Since the reply contains a number of figures, I will with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the proportion payable on an income of £1,999 was 32·4 per cent, in 1951 and 24·0 per cent. in 1963; and no tax was payable in 1963 by a single man on £250 or a married man with two children on £680, although in 1951 a man in either of these situations paid about 7 per cent. of his income in tax.

Mr. Longden: While thanking my hon. Friend for having got out those figures, may I ask whether it would be correct to say that, although total Exchequer receipts from direct taxation have risen with incomes, individual taxpayers in those income brackets today pay either nothing, or a significantly smaller proportion of their incomes than in 1951?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend is, of course, right that the rates of tax have been decreased. As the House knows,

INCOME TAX AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL INCOME


Total income (earned)
Single man
Married man with 1 child
Married man with 2 children
Married man with 3 children


1951
1963
1951
1963
1951
1963
1951
1963


£



per cent.
per cent.
per cent.
per cent.
per cent.
per cent.
per cent.
per cent.


250
…
…
…
6·7
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


400
…
…
…
12·4
4·5
2·1
—
—
—
—
—


680
…
…
…
21·6
12·2
11·1
1·4
7·5
—
4·6
—


1000
…
…
…
26·8
17·9
19·7
7·9
16·4
3·7
13·1
0·3


1500
…
…
…
30·6
22·0
25·8
15·3
23·6
11·7
21·4
8·0


1999
…
…
…
32·4
24·0
28·9
19·0
27·2
16·3
25·5
13·6


Assuming all children are between the ages of 11 and 16 years.

Public Works Loan Board (Interest Rates)

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the interest rate charged by the Public Works Loan Board to local council authorities in 1950 and 1960, respectively; and what effect the changed interest rates have had on rents and the cost-of-living index.

Mr. M. Macmillan: The rate of interest on Public Works Loan Board loans to local authorities in 1950–51 and 1960–61 was 3 per cent. and 6⅛ per cent.

there has been an increase of nearly 100 per cent. in personal incomes, and it is the progressive nature of the Income Tax which results in these higher incomes paying in aggregate more tax.

Mr. Houghton: I am sorry to intervene in this cosy exchange of spurious comparisons, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether in circulating these figures he will make adjustments for the fall in the value of money? If he does, he will discover, for example, that a married man with no children, getting £750 a year, in 1951 was paying 18 per cent. of his income in taxation, and that after adjustment for the fall in the value of money he is paying exactly the same proportion in real terms now.

Mr. Macmillan: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find the figures complete. I would point out that the reduction for a single man was 100 per cent. over this period if his income was £250; 33 per cent. if it was £1,000; 26 per cent. if it was £2,000; while in the highest incomes the reduction was less than 8 per cent.

Following is the table:

respectively. The effect of the increase on rents and the cost of living index cannot be quantified.

Mr. Spriggs: What is the good of making political broadcasts about housing people if interest rates make it almost impossible for people to borrow money to build houses for themselves while interest rates are put before housing the people?

Mr. Macmillan: Although it is difficult to quantify these matters, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) asked a Question as a result of


which it was found that comparing interest rates over the period 1952–53 to 1956–57, the difference between what was in fact paid and what would have been paid had the rate of interest remained at the 1951 level, was about £3,000 a year, which can hardly be said to be a crippling addition in the way the hon. Gentleman has implied.

Mr. Doig: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the difference between 3 per cent. and 5¾ per cent. is equivalent to £1 a week in rent, and therefore the figures which he has given amount to substantially more than £1 a week in rent on the value of the house?

Mr. Macmillan: That is not shown by the figures which I have been able to find for houses in county boroughs and in the L.C.C. area. A rent of 10s. 2d. in 1950–51 was equivalent to 19s. 3d. in 1960–61, an increase of 9s. 0d.

Mr. A. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Answer to my Question. Is he aware that in that Answer he mentioned the period 1956–57? It appears that the hon. Gentleman can give figures when they are favourable to the Government, but that when I ask for up-to-date figures he cannot provide them. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman give up-to-date figures for rents? Why pick out only the favourable ones?

Mr. Macmillan: I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman put down a Question to that effect.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman referred to my Question.

Purchase Tax (Anglers' Umbrellas)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Purchase Tax on anglers' umbrellas is fixed at different rates; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Macmillan: The rate of Purchase Tax on anglers' umbrellas is 25 per cent. I am aware of the anomaly which the hon. Member has in mind; it arises because garden umbrellas, like garden furniture in general are taxed at the rate of 10 per cent.

Mr. Dempsey: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the document published by the Anglers' Association depicts this type of umbrella

being us(id by anglers? Is it not ludicrous that one colour should bear a 10 per cent. tax, while another colour bears a 25 per cent. tax? Should not we get a clear answer to end this ludicrous situation and ask the Minister to stop angling?

Mr. Macmillan: There is an anomaly. It arises from the definition of garden umbrellas, which was agreed with the trade association. The simplest and most direct method of removing the anomaly is to classify garden umbrellas as umbrellas, and not as garden furniture, rater than the reverse.

Unearned and Earned Income (Taxation)

Miss Quennell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the administrative cost to his Department in distinguishing for taxation purposes between unearned and earned income.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I regret that it is not possible to make a precise estimate, but the cost is quite small.

Miss Quennell: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that owing to the rather indefinite nature of that Reply, it is conceivable that the net receipts are less than the net costs of this differentiation?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I explained when my hon. Friend asked broadly the same Question this time last year, both these forms of tax are collected by the same officers and the same offices and the additional cost is very small.

Computers

Miss Quennell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many computers are available to his Department; and in which departments they are in use.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The departments of Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue each operate one computer, and so does the Stationery Office.

Miss Quennell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he could have given me more precise answers to my Questions both last year and now if he had had a computer?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Even a computer is no good for indulging in the mathematical equivalent of nuclear fission.

Tax-Free Incomes

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are earning incomes which are tax-free although above the level at which incomes normally become taxable; and if he will ensure that such incomes pay their due share of taxation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As income which is not in law taxable is normally not required to be the subject matter of an Income Tax return, the information is not, of course, available.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless accept the inference in the Question, that there are incomes which are not subject to tax but which would ordinarily be so subject? If that is the case, how can he and his Government expect the organised workers to accept any kind of incomes policy?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the hon. Member reflects upon some forms of income which do not attract tax, although the persons in receipt of them may be above the tax level, he may modify that view. They include war disability pensions, unemployment benefit and interest on National Savings Certificates.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman just give a categorical answer to a categorical question, namely, whether he will seek to tax the incomes of people who own tax-free toll bridges, and who have done so for 250 years?

Mr. Speaker: That point seems more appropriate to the next Question. I will call the hon. Member to ask Question No. 10.

Toll Bridges

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will enumerate the difficulties which are preventing the taxation of incomes derived from tax-free toll bridges.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The withdrawal of the statutory exemptions from taxation which certain toll bridges at present

enjoy would require legislation in a Finance Bill. On this I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to the hon. Member's Question and supplementaries on 17th March.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer was that the Government had no intention of taking action because of the apparently insuperable difficulties of the case? Since this has been going on for more than two years and the Government had an opportunity of legislating for it in last year's Finance Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to take urgent action? Otherwise, his appeals for an incomes policy are ludicrous.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall not be led into anticipating the Budget or the Finance Bill, but I would ask the hon. Member to reflect whether he really thinks that we shall help to achieve an incomes policy by suggesting that it is self-evident that a Government should unilaterally break a bargain even though it was made many years ago.

Mr. Manuel: Would the owner of a tax-free toll bridge be committing any infringement of the law if he did not give a receipt for money paid?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is certainly not a matter for me.

Taxation

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give the annual percentage rise or fall in all forms of taxation since 1951, taking that year as being equal to 100 and allowing for the annual depreciation in the purchasing value of the £sterling.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, Sir. As the reply is in the form of a table I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Since the Government and the party they represent have consistently, at each election, said that they would reduce Government expenditure, reduce taxation and make the £ worth something, and since Government expenditure is now the highest that it has ever been and the £ is now worth less than at any time in our history, can we know when the Government will do something to implement some of their policies?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the hon. Gentleman studies my answer he will see that the figures which I have given him in response to his Question indicate that an expanding economy has enabled simultaneously an increased yield of taxation to be produced by taking a smaller proportion of the gross national product.

Following is the information:
The first column in the table below shows Central Government receipts from taxes on income, expenditure and capital, adjusted to take account of changes in the purchasing power of the £ as measured by the consumers' price index and expressed as an index (1951=100). The second column shows the changes in receipts from taxation as a proportion of gross national product at factor cost.

—
Total yield of taxation adjusted for changes in the purchasing power of the £
Taxes as a percentage of gross national product



(1951=100)
(1951=100)


1951
100
100


1952
99
97


1953
97
90


1954
99
88


1955
102
89


1956
100
84


1957
104
85


1958
105
84


1959
107
83


1960
109
79


1961
117
82


1962
122
86


1963
121
82

Emigrants to South Africa

Dr. Bray: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information is given to emigrants to South Africa about restrictions on the repatriation of their capital should they wish to return to this country.

Mr. M. Macmillan: As a matter of routine, none; naturally we answer all inquiries to the best of our ability.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that many British citizens who have exported their capital with them to South Africa have found that they cannot stand the society out there, and that when they discover that there are restrictions upon the repatriation of their capital they feel that the British Government have let them down? Will he take steps to see that emigrants are warned before they go?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that it is possible for the Government to send out or broadcast warnings about restrictions imposed not only by South Africa but by practically every country, inside and outside the Commonwealth, on the remittance of funds back to the United Kingdom. We answer every query that comes to us to the best of our ability, and it is the normal practice of people seeking to go abroad to obtain advice from their banks and other institutions. It is not a responsibility of the Government to search out these people and volunteer advice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Magherafelt Exchange

Mr. H. Clark: asked the Postmaster-General when the Magherafelt telephone exchange will be converted to subscriber trunk dialling.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins): The installation of S.T.D. equipment will start this month and will be completed towards the end of the year.

Mr. Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how welcome his reply will be to anyone who has tried to ring this exchange from outside Northern Ireland, because of the complete inability of telephone operators anywhere other than in Northern Ireland to pronounce the name?

Mr. Bevins: It will be a matter of only a few months.

Telephone Kiosks

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give the average cost of installation and maintenance of a single telephone kiosk.

Mr. Bevins: The average capital cost of a telephone kiosk is £330, including the cost of the line and exchange equipment. A kiosk must take £250 a year on average to cover total annual costs.

Mr. Browne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Post Office quite rightly uses certain social criteria in rural areas in respect of the installation of kiosks which cannot possibly make


money? If that is the ease, will he explain to the uninitiated what these criteria are? Does he consult some body? It appears that on some occasions these kiosks are installed in completely out-of-the-way places, and yet on other occasions when we ask the Postmaster-General to install them in reasonable places he refuses.

Mr. Bevins: The Post Office at present loses between £3 million and £4 million a year on telephone kiosks, but we have special arrangements with the Rural District Councils Association to make sure that deserving cases in rural areas are met.

Mr. Lipton: Do the figures which the Postmaster-General has given include the cost of dealing with damage done to telephone kiosks by vandals? Does not that damage amount to a considerable figure over a year?

Mr. Bevins: The figures naturally include all the costs.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Colour Television

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General what decision he has reached on the introduction of colour television in Great Britain; and when colour television broadcasting will commence.

Mr. Bevins: I expect to reach a conclusion on this matter within the next week.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the Postmaster-General bear in mind the fact that considerable public irritation has been caused because of the delay in arriving at a decision? Is he not aware that defeated nations such as Germany and Japan have colour television? Delay is causing uncertainty in the industry, and it is imperative that this decision should be made as soon as is humanly possible.

Mr. Bevins: As I said, I shall announce the decision next week.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whereas we pioneered high definition television,

in this instance it would be wiser to wait until Europe has decided what system of colour television she is to have before again introducing a system here which is not supported by Continental countries?

Mr. Bevins: That is a very important consideration, and one which I am certainly taking into account.

Mr. Mason: Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the television industry, television manufacturers and the B.B.C. about the possibility of going it alone, irrespective of European compatibility; what the pitfalls are, and to what extent we could overcome them? Has he discarded completely any possibility of calling another European conference with the object of getting the best colour system for the whole of Europe?

Mr. Bevins: The B.B.C., the I.T.A., and the radio industry form part of the Television Advisory Committee. I have had its advice, and when I have had an opportunity of considering it I will announce my decision.

Radio "Caroline"

Mr. Mason: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the activities and broadcasts of the radio station Radio "Caroline"; if he is aware of the inherent dangers of allowing such a station to continue; and whether he will either jam all broadcasts, or prepare legislation to make pirate radio stations operating off the coastline illegal.

Mr. Bevins: A station calling itself Radio "Caroline" has been broadcasting programmes of music during the day-time from a ship beyond territorial waters off Harwich. I recognise the dangers of the situation and have not overlooked the measures suggested by the hon. Member. As I informed the House on 5th February, there is a prospect of concerted action against pirate broadcasting by countries of the Council of Europe before long, but meanwhile am considering the possibility of new legislation. As the House knows, I am relying on British advertisers not to use this or any similar unauthorised station.

Mr. Mason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am obliged to him for


that reply, and pleased to hear that he is seriously considering the matter? Is he aware that there is a very urgent need for something to be done to discourage the permanent establishment of Radio "Caroline" and Radio "Atlanta", and for a policy which would discourage the setting up of any other radio stations to Form a radio network round our shores?

Mr. Bevins: I have indicated that we have not been idle in this matter. The most important thing is to dissuade advertising interests from using these pirate stations. The principal advertising associations have given an assurance that the principal advertisers will boycott these offenders. The gramophone record industry is also co-operating with the authorities and the Panamanian Government has withdrawn registration from the ship.

Sir H. Butcher: Will my right hon. Friend invite the directors of the B.B.C. to consider whether they should now accept a bit of advertising?

Mr. P. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whom this station is harming?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, the station is causing interference with a Belgian station which communicates with ships at sea, and also with British maritime services.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Post Office Savings Bank

Dr. Bray: asked the Postmaster-General what representations he has now received from the Civil Service Clerical Association regarding the proposed location of the Post Office Savings Bank.

Mr. Bevins: The Civil Service Clerical Association has written to me expressing its disappointment at the decision to move the bank to Glasgow, contrary to the staff preference for Tees-side. I fully understand its reaction but as I said on 25th March the Government considered that the choice of Glasgow was in the national interest.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that it makes nonsense of joint consultation if his staff is asked where they would like to go and then told that they cannot go there? Can he tell the House whether

this is the policy which he proposes to pursue regarding the location of other Government Departments?

Mr. Bevins: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. On two occasions I discussed this matter with representatives of the staff side and I made quite clear that their views would be taken into account, as indeed they were. I made it equally clear that their views, in the nature of the case, could not be decisive.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that most people interested in the preservation of good industrial relations feel that this was a most ridiculous way in which to handle the matter? Is he aware that it would have been just as simple for the Government to come to a decision without making inquiries of the staff side at all? Will he please accept that in the north of England—even though we may perhaps be prejudiced in this matter—we think that it was a very bad way to handle the affair?

Mr. Bevins: I am sorry, but I wholly disagree with my hon. Friend. Had the Government come to a decision and subsequently informed the staff association, I am sure that the association would have been more irate than it is at the moment.

Mr. Millan: Is the Minister aware that his decision to move the bank to Glasgow has been welcomed enthusiastically in Scotland, and that the Glasgow Corporation and other authorities will do everything in their power to welcome the staff? Is he aware that many of the anxieties which the staff have about the move will not materialise and that they will find themselves very welcome and will be very happy in Glasgow?

Mr. Bevins: I have every reason to believe that what the hon. Gentleman has said is true.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that the decision not to transfer the Post Office Savings Bank to Tees-side has been received with no enthusiasm whatever, and indeed with considerable disappointment? Was not an assumption made some time ago—to which I understand the Minister gave some measure of support—that the transfer would be made to Tees-side? May I ask a plain


question? Was it the right hon. Gentleman who came to this decision, or the Prime Minister?

Mr. Bevins: The decision to send the bank to Glasgow was a Government decision. In a dispersal of this size, involving the employment in Glasgow of perhaps 5,000 or 6,000 people, it was perfectly right that I should consult my colleagues in the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Gypsies, Essex

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs on what date the Essex County Council first communicated with his Department in reply to Circular No. 6/62 of 8th February, 1962, on the problem of gypsies and other travellers.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. F. V. Corfield): On 27th July, 1962.

Mr. Dodds: Does that reply reveal that there were over 200 families without lawful sites, twice as many as in Kent? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Kent is trying to provide sites? What is Essex doing about it?

Mr. Corfield: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question would be made more appropriately in reply to his next Question. It is true that a survey showed 208 caravans, but it was the conclusion of the Essex County Council that the number of caravans in relation to the size of the county called for no further action.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Parliamentary Secretary saying that people who live in caravans, who have no site for their caravan and are being hounded by the police, are comforted to know that they are in a bigger county than Kent? Is not that a stupid way to deal with this problem? Is he aware that we are asking for sites for men, women, and children and that this is not South Africa—this is Britain?

Mr. Corfield: If the hon. Gentleman will do me the honour of reading my

Answer, he will see that I did not say that at all.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, in view of the unsatisfactory conditions in Essex for gypsies and other travellers, what progress has been made in discussions with the county council for the provision of places where their caravans can be accommodated, particularly during winter months when work is not available on the farms, for those who wish for a settled way of life and that their children shall go to school.

Mr. Corfield: Following earlier discussions, Essex County Council carried out a further survey on 14th November, 1963. They are now looking for suitable sites in those areas where the concentration of itinerants shows that there is a need for winter quarters.

Mr. Dodds: Surely the survey was taken in February and March of 1962? What have they been doing in the two previous years? Or is it a case that his Department has not exerted any pressure or tried to persuade them to do something which it might have been expected would be done for families who are in this situation because of the passing of legislation in this House, including the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have undertaken to see the county councils of the Home Counties again very shortly, but he will also know that my powers are limited to persuasion and exhortation. With the advantage of hindsight, it is evident that Essex has not done as much as ought to have been done, or as has been done by neighbouring counties.

Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act, 1963

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many local authorities have failed to comply with the Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act, 1963; and how many turnstiles still remain in municipal lavatories.

Mr. Corfield: My latest information is that of the 87 authorities which earlier


refused to do anything or had not reached a decision, all but 14 have now removed their turnstiles; 7 of these will remove theirs within the next few weeks. I do not know the exact number of turnstiles still remaining.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Minister aware that the deadline for the removal of these turnstiles was two months ago and that these 14 local authorities are breaking the law with impunity? Can he say whether any private citizen would be allowed to break the law in that way without being called to account by the Government or the courts? Will he, therefore, issue immediate instructions to these 14 local authorities to open the doors at the side of the turnstiles to give free and unrestricted access for women to these conveniences without further delay?

Mr. Corfield: My right hon. Friend has no power to take the action suggested by the hon. Lady. I can assure her that my right hon. Friend will use the enforcement powers in the Act where that is appropriate. I am sure that she will appreciate that High Court action which is envisaged is not necessarily appropriate in every case when a delay is likely to be a matter of only a few weeks?

South-East Study

Mr. D. Foot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what arrangements he has now made for consultation with local planning authorities and other local authorities on the proposals contained in the South-East Study; what other steps he proposes to take to ascertain public opinion on these proposals; and when he expects to take final decisions as regards the location and size of individual expansions.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir Keith Joseph): I have asked local planning authorities, and the councils of towns where expansion is suggested, to let me have their views by 30th June; and my Department will arrange meeting; with them when they are ready to discuss the issues which affect them. I am also ready to consider views put forward by any other interested body or person. A final decision to approve a

particular expansion cannot be taken without much preparatory work, including a local inquiry. I cannot therefore say when decisions on particular schemes will be retched.

Mr. Foot: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific in giving us a time-table? Does he not appreciate that until the decisions referred to in the last part of my Question are taken it is very difficult for planning authorities to make decisions?

Sir K. Joseph: One of the results of the plan being discussed in public is to cause some doubts until the final decisions are taken. This is inevitable. We shall have the views of the authorities by 30th June and the discussions with them will follow as soon as possible. I hope the decisions will be within the next year.

Ipswich {Vincent Report)

Mr. D. Foot: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will arrange for the Vincent Report on Ipswich which is now only obtainable from his Department at the price of £1 2s. 6d. to be printed as a Stationery Office publication or otherwise made available to the public at a reasonable price.

Mr. Corfield: The Vincent Report was printed under Stationery Office arrangements. It is one of three similar Reports all available at the same price of £1 2s. 6d. which is the lowest figure at which they can be sold without loss.

Mr. Foot: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that this Report is of great interest, not only to people in Ipswich but throughout East Anglia and, it may be, elsewhere, as this is a model study? Does he appreciate that it is quite impossible for the majority of people who are interested to pay the price of £1 2s. 6d.?

Mr. Corfield: The hon. and learned Member appreciate that this Report and the other two which go with it are reports of a theoretical study. Its publication does not imply either that Ipswich will be expanded or, if it is, that it will necessarily be done in this particular way. It has, therefore, no significance


for the general public in Ipswich, but it is of value to those professionally concerned and in local government. I see no reason why they should not pay an economic price for its production.

Burial and Cremation Bill

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he has yet completed his consultations about amending the law relating to burial and cremation; and when the proposed Bill will be introduced.

Mr. Corfield: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir".
On the second part, I hope that the Bill, which will apply to England and Wales, will be ready before the end of the year. As the hon. and learned Member is aware, the intention is to hand it to the noble Lord, Lord Colville of Culross, in place of the one which he withdrew last year.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister realise that his shocking delay in this urgent matter concerning life and death is causing serious inconvenience to citizens and local authorities in a variety of ways and to the relatives of those who cannot avoid death any more than the rest of us?

Mr. Corfield: I have no doubt that that will be the concern of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Houses, Salford (Rent)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what action he proposes to take regarding the letter sent him by the hon. Member for Salford, East, regarding a firm of landlords, E. Ross Ltd. of Bolton, who, having failed to induce three widows, all old age pensioners, to buy the houses in Salford in which they have been tenants for more than 30 years, have sent them notices stating that their houses are decontrolled and raising their rents by 17s. 6d. a week.

Sir K. Joseph: I have referred the matter to the local authority to consider

whether there has been any contravention of the Rent Act, 1957.

Mr. Allaun: As this kind of trick is being played on controlled tenants all over the country, does not the Minister think that, where court convictions are obtained, severe sentences should be imposed and that this would have an effect on other guilty landlords?

Sir K. Joseph: It is not for me to make any such comment about the judiciary. I have no evidence that this practice, if it does exist, is widespread.

Mr. M. Stewart: Are the three ladies referred to in the Question examples of the old people who have nothing whatever to worry about, of whom we were told in a Conservative television show recently?

Sir K. Joseph: They certainly have nothing whatsoever to worry about if they take advantage of their legal rights preserved to them by law.

Council Houses (Interest Charges)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what was the average cost of interest charges per week for each council dwelling in 1951 and in 1963 for the United Kingdom and for the City of Salford, respectively.

Sir K. Joseph: The information asked for is not available.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that I am very disappointed that an important figure like that is not available, but, as a layman can work it out himself, is he aware that the figure for interest alone on an average council flat is £2 14s. a week, which is double what it was in 1951?

Sir K. Joseph: The figure cannot be worked out as simply as that. My Department has a great deal of information on this matter, but the exact information is available only in part and in particular not for most of 1963. Of course, earnings have risen very substantially, subsidies have trebled and where councils are sensible enough to apply rent rebate schemes there is no


reason whatever why everyone should not have council house or flat accommodation at reasonable rents.

Mr. Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the subsidy does not equal the increase in interest charges?

Sir K. Joseph: No, it is not possible to work it out in this way. The subsidy has trebled—the straight ordinary housing subsidy plus the additional subsidies for high building and expensive sites.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SCOTLAND (TRANSPORT FACILITIES)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Prime Minister if he will define the relative responsibilities to Parliament of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Transport in making decisions about the provision of effective transport facilities to implement Her Majesty's Government's proposals for economic development in those areas in Scotland defined as growth points.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has statutory responsibilities for roads, and a general responsibility to see that the White Paper programme for development and growth in Central Scotland is carried out. The main responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in this field relate to railway investment and railway passenger closures. Wherever appropriate they seek the co-operation of the nationalised rail and road transport undertakings and other providers of transport.

Mrs. Hart: Is the Prime Minister aware that East Kilbride is defined in the recent White Paper on Central Scotland as a key growth area? Is he further aware that neither of his right hon. Friends is prepared to take any initiative in the improvement of transport facilities, particularly on the railways, which are called for in the White Paper? Does not this mean that the White Paper on Central Scotland and plans for economic growth are rendered considerably ineffective and that the Government begin to look pretty foolish, or is it perhaps that his right hon. Friends share the views of the writer in The Times last week?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that my right hon. Friends have no interest in this area and its communications. They certainly have. The hon. Lady asked about co-ordination of their responsibilities and their responsibility for seeing to it that there are communications, adequate communications, in the development areas in Scotland. That is their responsibility.

Mrs. Hart: It is the case, as the Prime Minister will surely have seen, has he not, that neither Minister is prepared to take an initiative? What is the point of co-ordinating responsibilities if the responsibilities preclude the taking of initiative?

The Prime Minister: I do not think they are precluded from taking any initiative and I do not accept that they have not taken any initiative, but, if the hon. Lady has a particular case in which she wants the Minister of Transport or the Minister of State to take an initiative, perhaps she will tell them or me.

Mrs. Hart: I have done so.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to place her nuclear deterrent forces irrevocably in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation pool.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Answer I gave to a similar Question on 24th March.

Mr. Henderson: Are we to understand from the Pr me Minister's reply and the statement made by the Navy Minister as Government spokesman in another place that the Government now accept in principle the passing of the British nuclear deterrent to a structurally strengthened N.A.T.O. common pool?

The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. and learned Member knows the answer to this question. We have allocated our nuclear arm to N.A.T.O. for all N.A.T.O purposes, but we have the ultimate control of it should any Government in this country so decide.

Sir J. Eden: Surely until there is some really effective form of political control and structure of command in N.A.T.O., it would be absolutely irresponsible for this country to contract out of our nuclear obligations?

The Prime Minister: I think that in all these matters we are speculating and looking a very long way ahead. Neither the Americans nor the French, when they have their own nuclear weapons, will surrender their own nuclear arm entirely to another organisation. Of that I have no doubt. I see no reason why this country should do so until we have a much clearer picture of what the international situation will look like.

Mr. G. Brown: As both the Minister for the Navy and the Secretary of State for Defence have said publicly that we ought to be looking forward to the day when we could pool nuclear arms, will the Prime Minister tell us what steps he is taking to bring about that desirable situation?

The Prime Minister: The first step I am taking is not to scrap our nuclear arm now. The second step is to wait until we see much more clearly the picture of nuclear arms in the world before we decide to scrap our arms.

Mr. Longden: Is it not the case that all my noble Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy was very sensibly saying was that "never" is a word which should never be used in politics?

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government spokesman in the House of Lords used the word "irrevocably" and said that the weapons would be irrevocably pooled when the organic structure for the Western Alliance was sufficiently strong? May we have it made clear whether the Prime Minister agrees with that and that in those circumstances these weapons will be irrevocably pooled? Secondly, may I ask what steps he is taking to make this structure organically strong? Merely keeping our own weapons is hardly a step towards strengthening the Western Alliance.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better tell that to the French and the Americans because they

both intend to keep their own nuclear weapons. What I am saying is that we should keep ours until we see much more clearly the picture of nuclear arms in the world.

Mr. G. Brown: Will the Prime Minister answer the question which he is dodging? Does he or does he not agree with the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy and the Secretary of State for Defence?

The Prime Minister: As I understand it, my noble Friend in another place—

Mr. Brown: Let us have a straight answer.

The Prime Minister: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to understand what my noble Friend said. He said that he did not think that it was inconceivable that there might come a time when the organic structure of the Western Alliance was sufficiently strong for us to be able with entire confidence to place our nuclear armoury irrevocably in a common pool. I cannot possibly tell, first of all, whether the organic structure of the Western Alliance will take any form of that kind, and until I do shall not be able to say.

Mr. Brown: We want a straight answer.

Mr. Speaker: Dame Irene Ward, to ask Question No. 3.

The Prime Minister: rose—

Mr. G. Brown: Answer the other Question.

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let me answer Question No. 3. This is a straight answer, too.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH-EAST

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the letter sent to him by the hon. Member for Tynemouth forwarding to him correspondence from the Town Clerk of Newcastle-on-Tyne on the subject of the North-East Regional Plan.

The Prime Minister: The local authorities in the North-East are naturally looking for further ways in which the Government's plan might benefit the Region


and the Government are always ready to examine any suggestions put forward. I am convinced that our plan for the development of the Region is soundly based and will achieve results.

Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend be pleased to hear that at the last quarterly meeting of the North-East Development Council the Report put forward was most encouraging, stimulating and helpful and—

Mr. W. Hamilton: Does he agree?

Dame Irene Ward: —in view of the satisfactory progress which has been made out of the Hailsham or Hogg plan, would my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of hitting the political croakers on the other side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not accept that there is Ministerial responsibility for doing anything violent.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) on 24th March.

Mr. Rankin: I read both the replies but neither of them told me anything. Is it not the case that the Solicitor-General for Scotland held his high office for 3½ years without becoming a Member of the House? Did not the Prime Minister ask him why it was that 3½ months after he had become a Member, he ran away from his job? Was it because he did not like the company in which he found himself? Or was it due to the fact that the Government were simply cashing in on his high office to prevent them from losing the marginal seat at Dumfries in the recent by-election?

The Prime Minister: The House has often been without the Solicitor-General for Scotland, I am sorry to say. When the Labour Party were in power in 1924—I have been glancing through the records—

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) said that he was rising to a print of order. I wish to hear it. I could not hear it then.

Mr. Rankin: Is it in order to reply to a Question which I have never put? I did not put the Question to any Prime Minister who was in office in 1924 but to the Prime Minister in office now.

Mr. Speaker: There was nothing out of order in the Answer.

The Prime Minister: I was about to tell the hon. Member that this situation has often occurred in the House before. Taking a cursory look at the Labour Party, I do not see a member of the Scottish Bar there, either.

Mr. Rankin: Further to my point of order—

Mr. Speaker: That, I am afraid, is a procedural impossibility, because the hon. Member's first point of order was not one.

Mr. Rankin: How can you judge, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a point of order?

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member rises to a point of order. It is necessary that I shall be able to hear it.

Mr. Ranklin: Surely you can help me on this point, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to reply to a Question which was not put to him and to evade the Question which was put to him?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order for Ministers to make any or no reply. I cannot control them—that is why.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (RESEARCH CENTRE)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he is making to co-ordinate the activities of the Minister of Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Education and Science so that Her Majesty's Government can extend an invitation to the World Health Organisation to establish its proposed £100 million international health research centre in the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on 26th March to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).

Dr. Mabon: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Minister of Health has consistently appeared unsympathetic to this proposal while the Secretary of State for Scotland has been very enthusiastic and the Secretary of State for Education and Science totally indifferent? Is it not the case that we need leadership here, and would he consider suggesting that the Government are in favour of this project and welcome it to this country?

The Prime Minister: We have based our attitude, as I think the hon. Member knows, on the advice of the Council on Scientific Policy. On two points they have been agreed. The one on which there has been disagreement so far is the establishment of a large scientific laboratory for biological research. On the recommendation of the Advisory Council that is not thought to be advisable. In this view we have been supported by a great majority of the countries which have considered this matter.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is not the Prime Minister aware that in the week before the Easter Recess we had Answers from the Minister of Health, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Leader of the House on the question of the World Health Centre which were completely contradictory? In those circumstances does he think that there is something to be said for co-ordinating arrangements in this case? Would he care to take the opportunity to state categorically whether, with the proviso which he has just mentioned, the Government support this idea?

The Prime Minister: We have asked the Director-General of the World Health Organisation to give further consideration of this matter of the international laboratory because as a result of the international discussions the great majority of countries including our own, have not felt that it is desirable at present.

Mr. H. Wilson: But if that is the Government's decision, if that is the line which they have taken at Geneva, why,

a few days before the Easter Recess, did the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the House express the full support of the Government, saying that they were doing everything in their power to get this establishment in Scotland when the Government have not even made up their mind whether there should be one?

The Prime Minister: That is hardly true. What my hon. Friend was saying was that if it is decided to have such a laboratory, then of course Scotland has a claim for it.

Mr. Wilson: The impression which the Minister gave to the House was that the decision lay not in the hands of this country. He gave no impression whatever that it was the Government who were sending this back for further examination.

The Prime Minister: It was sent back from everybody for further examination—including three Commonwealth countries and other countries concerned in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889

Dr. Dickson Matron: asked the Prime Minister what Ministerial arrangements are now being made to fulfil the obligation of the universities of Scotland to report to the Secretary of State for Scotland under the provisions of the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Prime Minister what changes will be consequential on recent alterations in Ministerial responsibilities for higher education in the United Kingdom in the procedure for making reports under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889.

The Prime Minister: The new Ministerial arrangements do not affect functions under this Act.

Dr. Mahon: If there are no changes made in these Ministerial obligations, what was the point of the reshuffle? It is difficult to understand why the administration of universities should be taken completely out of the hands of the Secretary of State if he still has his obligations, yet the Secretary of State for Education and Science seems to have few or no


powers. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of us are very concerned about this and still do not understand why this change was made?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman does not ask why the change was made but about this particular obligation on the universities to report to the Secretary of State. This obligation still remains under the Statute. Whether it should continue to remain I am not so sure, and we are now looking into the question.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as he seems to he, that there are considerable responsibilities vested in the Secretary of State under the 1889 Act and that we in Scotland would wish to see those responsibilities acted upon and continued under any change in legislation that may be made?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's view on this matter, which I will certainly take into account.

CYPRUS(UNITED NATIONS FORCE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will make a statement on the present stage in the handing over of functions from British troops in Cyprus to the United Nations force.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I will, with permission, now answer Question No. 29.
The United Nations Force in Cyprus became operational on 27th March. On assuming command, General Gyani expressed his admiration for the manner in which our British troops had been carrying out their peace-keeping task; and he praised the courage, restraint and patience which they had shown.
At present, the United Nations Force consists of 4,500 men from Britain, and 1,200 from Canada. There are also some small advance parties from the Republic of Ireland, Finland and

Sweden. The main contingents from these three countries, totalling rather over 2,000 men, are expected to arrive within two or three weeks.
One British battalion has already been withdrawn from Cyprus, and we shall be able to make further reductions as soon as our troops can be relieved by contingents from other countries. The planned strength of the United Nations Force is approximately 7,000, of which we have offered to provide, if necessary, up to half.
Since recent incidents have caused some anxiety, I think it right to inform the House that we are satisfied that the directions under which the United Nations troops have been operating give them adequate authority to use such force as may be absolutely necessary for self-defence and to enable them to discharge their mission.
The Secretary-General has assured us that he recognises that the Force must have the powers necessary to fulfil its task.

Mr. Bottomley: Is it not regrettable that British troops are being asked to carry out a well-nigh impossible task? Can the Secretary of State explain how it came about that British troops were disarmed at gunpoint by Greek-Cypriot irregulars? Will he convey on behalf of us all our appreciation of the way in which the British troops, under great difficulties, are doing their best to keep the peace?

Mr. Sandys: I am sure that we all greatly admire the restraint they have shown in these humiliating circumstances. Recent behaviour towards the British troops in the United Nations Force has, as I think everyone will agree, been deplorable. General Gyani has lodged the strongest protest to the Greek-Cypriot authorities on this matter.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While wishing to associate myself with my right hon. Friend's remarks about the conduct of the British troops in Cyprus, may I ask him—since he has said that there are about 4,000 British troops there now and that we are ready to contribute a half of 7,000 of the United Nations Force—whether he can give an assurance that we will not commit men just by numbers,


but that whatever commitment we undertake in this respect will be a commitment of units or formations which will make military sense?

Mr. Sandys: Of course.

Mr. Grimond: The whole country will be grateful to the British troops for their conduct in conditions of extreme difficulty, but are not those difficulties in part due to the confused state of the terms of reference or orders under which the United Nations Force is supposed to act? As the right hon. Gentleman has said, in his view no United Nations Force could act in Cyprus unless it had clear terms of reference, or orders, or both. Will he now tell the House exactly what those orders may be and, in particular, whether it is for the United Nations Force to act simply in concert with the Greek-Cypriot forces in the island, or whether it is meant to hold the Greeks and Turks apart? Could he say exactly what it is?

Mr. Sandys: I would not like, in reply to a supplementary question, to try to define exactly what is the function of the Force.
I would welcome the publication of the instructions, but that, of course, is a matter to be decided by the Secretary-General.

Mr. Grimond: Is it not profoundly unsatisfactory that we should not know what the instructions are, and did not the Secretary of State himself say that the United Nations Force should not go into Cyprus until the instructions were made clear?

Mr. Sandys: The fact that they have not been published to the world does not mean that they have not been made clear to the commanders.

Sir G. Nicholson: I must pursue this matter further. Is it right that British troops, under the United Nations' ægis, should be acting under terms of reference or orders of which this country is ignorant? What conceivable motive can there be in the mind of anyone, the United Nations or anyone else, for keeping them secret? I must press this matter, because the House demands an answer.

Mr. Sandys: I have already made it clear that I am in agreement with my hon. Friend. I have said that I would

welcome the publication of these instructions. I will see to it that the views which are obviously held by the House are conveyed to the Secretary-General.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that another difficulty which the British troops have encountered has been the blocking of the road from Nicosia to Kyrenia by Turkish forces acting under orders from the Government in Ankara? Especially now that the United Nations Force is taking over, can he say by what authority and under what Clauses of the Treaty or the Constitution this action has been going on for some months, against the wishes of the Cyprus Government?

Mr. Sandys: That is not altogether correct. The Treaty of Alliance does not prescribe where the Greek and Turkish contingents, which are in Cyprus under the Treaty, are to be stationed. That is not laid down in the Treaty. The Turkish contingent—and, for that matter, the Greek contingent—have been in the places where they are now with the agreement of the Tripartite Force Commander before the taking over by the United Nations Force. Their location now or in the future is a matter between them and the Government of Cyprus.

Sir P. Agnew: Since my right hon. Friend's original Answer indicated that he is satisfied that the directions are right and proper under which the British troops should act, and since he has suggested that he and the Secretary of State for Defence have been made aware of what those instructions are, how is it possible for this House to know whether Ministers are looking after the welfare and proper conduct of our troops unless those instructions are published, so that hon. Members may judge of them?

Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend's supplementary question is much the same as that put earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson). I have made it clear that I would welcome the publication of these instructions. I will do my best, through my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, to secure the agreement of the Secretary-General to their publication.

Mr. Paget: Is it the position that our Commander knows what the instructions are, but is not allowed to tell his subordinate and junior commanders what they are? Surely that makes their position very difficult?

Mr. Sandys: I do not know from where the hon. and learned Gentleman gets that idea. I have said that the Secretary-General has not decided to publish the instructions to the world. I have not said that the instructions are not being communicated to the subordinate commanders of the United Nations Force. Of course they are.

Mr. Paget: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate this topic without a Question before the House.

SALE OF HOUSES AND LAND (LEGAL COSTS)

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the remunerations and fees of solicitors and others in the sale of houses and land in order to simplify the procedure and reduce the costs to buyers.
The purpose of my proposed and modest Bill, which I hope the House will give me leave to introduce, is to deal with the very neglected field of consumer protection in connection with the cost of the sale of houses and land. It is a field of protection which is crying aloud for reform.
To give the House some idea of the nature of this problem, I should like to refer to a letter, which is one of many that I have received. This is from a young man, a scientist, 32 years of age, who had to change his job and move from Norwich to Loughborough. The cost involved in the sale of his house and the purchase of another one was £6,000. Legal fees amounted to £105 and agents' fees to £65. The conveyance of his house was delayed for four months because a solicitor made a mistake in the conveyancing of his first house. The result was that this man and his wife, apart from having to pay over £170 in conveyancing fees, were compelled to pay £30 in interest charges for four months on the two houses which they still owned through no fault of their own.
This explains in very simple terms the nature of the problem with which the House should deal. It is estimated that approximately 700,000 houses change ownership every year and, at a rough and ready estimate, the cost of conveyancing in respect of houses, land and property amounts to about £50 million a year. A group of Labour solicitors dealing with this problem worked out the cost in the London area of the sale and purchase of a house valued at approximately £5,000. Their estimates were as follows: conveyancing and other charges in connection with such a house, unregistered, amounted to £451; on a house priced at £5,000, registered, the cost was £360.
The details, briefly, are as follows: on the unregistered house £138 in estate agents commission; £10 in solicitors' scale fees for the redemption of the mortgage; solicitors' scale fees for the sale and for other legal expenses £68 and £6. The figures in respect of the regisstered house are £138, £7, £44 and £4. For the purchase of the house the figures are £68, £53, £53, £25, £4, £7, £13 and £6, making a total for sale and purchase of £451; and for the registered house £44, £35, £35, £25, £4, £7 and £17, making a total of £360.
It is true that the Law Society has queried these figures, but the figures were produced by the group of Labour solicitors to whom I have referred. If these figures are correct, as presumably they are—and, in any case, nobody can doubt that on a house valued at £4,000 the cost in legal fees alone is £160 every time the house changes ownership—there is something seriously wrong with the whole legal system relating to the purchase and sale of property.
The Government intend to abolish the whole principle of resale price maintenance. We are told that their purpose is to abolish legal sanctions which enable prices to be maintained at a high level, and to introduce into the resale trade a kind of Eastern bazaar of competition in order to force down prices and to reduce the cost of living. If this principle is correct in connection with the manufacture and sale of consumer goods, the same principle must be applied to this great legal structure that has been built over the years which gives the legal profession and other professional bodies legal sanctions to maintain exorbitantly high prices.
The time has surely arrived when some reforms should be introduced into this outmoded system of the conveyancing of land and houses. When a young couple purchase a house for the first time it represents the one major expenditure in the whole of their lives, and, apart from the responsibility of mortgaging arrange-

ments, they have to find at least £60 in cash for legal costs at the very time when cash is very short.
I am very pleased to learn that the Law Society has today issued a statement to the Press, in which, apparently, it proposes, if I may use the term, to put its own house in order. Of course, this House has always been reluctant to introduce legislation when a trade or profession or trade union is willing to re-organise its arrangements and eliminate obvious social injustices and restrictive practices. The purpose of this Bill, therefore, is merely to help the legal profession to do its own reforming. The Law Society states that it proposes to simplify the procedure of conveyancing land and houses, and to get rid of the mumbo-jumbo and black magic which plague and have plagued for many years this kind of purchase. The Law Society proposes to agitate for the compulsory registration of all land and property in order automatically to reduce the cost to purchasers. This is precisely what my Bill would propose to do. I therefore hope the House will give me leave to introduce it, because such a Measure is long overdue.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. R. Edwards, Mr. W. T. Williams, Mr. Mendelson, Mrs. Slater, Mrs. Butler, Mr. Sydney Irving, Mr. Dodds, Mr. Loughlin, Mr. Milne, and Mr. Fernyhough.

SALE OF HOUSES AND LAND (LEGAL COSTS)

Bill to provide for leave to amend the law relating to the remunerations and fees of solicitors and others in the sale of houses and land in order to simplify the procedure and reduce the costs to buyers, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

POLICE BILL

As amended (in Standing Committee D and in the Scottish Standing Committee), further considered.

Schedule 6.—(AMENDMENTS OF POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1956.)

3.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 38, line 6, to leave out "shall" and to insert "to".
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it might be for the convenience of the House to take at the same time Amendment No. 46, in page 38, line 8, to leave out "before trial".

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so pleases.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The purpose of the first Amendment is merely grammatical, to fit the wording of Section 4(1,b) of the 1956 Act. It is the second Amendment which is the more important.
I should make clear at once that this Amendment makes no change of substance, but it is intended to remove a misleading implication. The police powers of arrest and detention are strictly limited in time, as the House knows, and the police have no discretion in the matter. A person arrested and detained must be produced to a public prosecutor so that, unless the prosecutor decides that no proceedings ought to be taken, he can be brought before the court—I quote from Section 20(3) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954—
wherever practicable…not later than in the course of the first lawful day after such person shall be taken into custody".
That is a strict legal limitation on the duration of police powers of detention. The police comply with it and do not delay in bringing an arrested person to the prosecutor. It is the existing law and there is no need to repeat it here.
The words "detained…before trial" might be read as implying that the police have powers or a discretion affecting an accused person's detention or release right up to the trial diet, whereas, as the House knows, once a public prosecutor comes into the case, police powers in that regard cease. On

reconsideration of the provision, the Government consider that, since the powers of the police can have no effect once court proceedings have started, the words "before trial" can have no effect and can only mislead as to the nature and extent of police powers. They, therefore, propose the omission of these words.
As I have said, the Amendment does not alter the substance of this provision to the effect that, so far as they have powers in the matter, the police shall not unreasonably and unnecessarily cause the detention of persons charged with criminal offences.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 38, line 8, leave out "before trial".—[Lady Tweedsmuir]

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move, Amendment No. 47, in page 38, to leave out lines 9 and 10 and to insert:
for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
'(2) The performance by a constable of a duty under any other enactment or under any rule of law shall be subject to the direction of the appropriate chief constable.';
for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
'(4) Any constable of a police force shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable throughout Scotland.';
in subsection (6), after the words 'police forces' there shall be inserted the words 'or to collaboration agreements';
after subsection (6), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
'(7) This section shall be without prejudice to the next following section, and to any other enactment conferring powers on a constable for particular purposes'".
I suggest that it might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if the House were to consider, at the same time, the consequential Amendment No. 72, in Schedule 9, page 56, line 15.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so pleases.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The Amendment is designed to give the Scottish constable, in place of his present limited jurisdiction, a general jurisdiction throughout Scotland. There is, however, a saving for the provisions of Section 5 of the 1956 Act which gives limited jurisdiction across the Border to constables of the Border counties of


Berwick, Roxburgh, Dumfries, Northumberland and Cumberland in relation to the execution of warrants. There is also a general saving for powers which may be conferred on a constable for particular purposes.
To take the various subsections in the Amendment in sequence, subsection (2) is a consequential Amendment necessitated by reason of the addition of subsection (7) to the Section. To avoid repetition, the saving portion has been moved into subsection (7), and what remains as subsection (2) has been slightly recast.
The main amendment is to subsection (4), which disappears and is replaced by a new subsection conferring a general jurisdiction on all constables throughout Scotland. The proviso to the old subsection (4) is now replaced, as I have said, by the new subsection (7), which also saves the trans-Border provisions of Section 5.
Subsection (6) refers to collaboration agreements and is necessary because these agreements are introduced for the first time in the Bill.
Hon. Members will recall that, on 4th February last, in the debate in the Scottish Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) referred to the difficulties caused by small police areas particularly in connection with the escorting of oversize vehicles through different police areas. It is hoped that the new provision will go a long way towards easing those difficulties.
The consequential Amendment No. 72 repeals Section 13 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1952. This Section enabled a constable to escort prisoners outside his own police area. Since he will now have jurisdiction throughout Scotland, the Section is no longer required.

Mr. William Ross: This is an eminently sensible suggestion which the Government make by the two Amendments. It meets points of criticism which we made in the Scottish Standing Committee. It gives us the same sort of general rights in respect of the powers and privileges of constables as have already been obtained for the police in England and Wales, thanks to Amendments put forward in Committee by my hon. Friends. We readily accept the

Amendments as a useful addition to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 38, line 45, to leave out "or an assistant".
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it might be convenient to take, at the same time, Amendment No. 50, in page 39, line 41, to leave out "assistant".

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if the House so pleases.

Mr. Ross: The Amendment which I have moved is, of course, consequential upon the removal of the word "assistant", which would be brought about by Amendment No. 50. Our concern here is to limit the interfering powers of the Secretary of State, a task to which I dedicate myself whenever I have the opportunity.
This is a weird exercise in confusion, and a very successful one, legislating by scheduled Amendments, by reference forward and by reference back. To add to the confusion, this subsection confers upon an assistant chief constable the right to contest his compulsory retiral by the police authority before the police authority has the right to retire him compulsorily.
4.0 p.m.
We have to go to the next page before we find out what this is all about. On page 39 there is a proviso in rather mysterious words:
Provided that paragraph (d) of the said subsection (3) and the said subsections (3A) and (3B) shall not apply to a constable below the rank of assistant chief constable unless he holds the appointment of deputy chief constable".
This should take us to the Scottish Act of 1956.
But when we look at that Act we find that there is no paragraph (d), and then we realise that paragraph (d) has already been dealt with on page 38. Paragraph (d) says:
may, without prejudice to those regulations, be required to retire by the police authority acting with the approval of the Secretary of State where they consider that his retirement is in the interests of efficiency".
In other words, by reference back to what we have done in respect of chief constables we find later on that we do it in respect not only of chief constables


but deputy and assistant chief con-stables.
Subsection (2) of paragraph (4) gives an assistant chief constable a right to be heard before he is required to retire by the police authority. We should not desire to remove that right from the assistant chief constable, and I hope that the noble Lady will tear up that part of the speech which would destroy this Amendment by saying that.
The real argument arises on the Amendment in page 39, line 41. If we remove the word "assistant", the requirement of retiral by the police authority in the interests of efficiency will not be applicable to assistant chief constables. It may be argued that this request for his retiral can be made only with the approval of the Secretary of State, and we may be criticised, even at this stage of the Bill, for leaving un-touched the same requirement about approval to be given by the Secretary of State in respect of the appointment of an assistant chief constable.
But having allowed that the Secretary of State has the veto on appointments—I have been concerned with this matter under existing powers concerning chief constables—the Secretary of State for Scotland can select a chief constable and, after the passing of this Bill, will be able to select an assistant chief constable as well. That being so, I should have thought that it was unnecessary further to exercise jurisdiction and powers in respect of approvals of retiral of the same person. In other words, we think that the Secretary of State is going far too far in taking unto himself all this power of appointment and approval.
We must face facts in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland is so busy that he cannot even come to the House of Commons. I do not know whether he is away looking for a new Solicitor-General. I can see that his absence today is probably to do with an address which he may be giving to the Convention of Royal Burghs today. I hope that he is explaining to that body how he is cutting into the powers of police authorities in Scotland in respect of not only appointment, but approvals of compulsory retiral of assistant chief constables.
We feel that if the Amendment in page 39, line 41, is accepted it will enable a continuation of the position in respect of assistant chief constables, which has given no trouble. When we remember that the Secretary of State is taking powers concerning approval the chances are, according to him, that we shall get me right man. Therefore, it is less necessary for him to intervene by compelling dismissal or approving the compulsory dismissal by the police authority.
I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about this matter and will realise that they are going unnecessarily far. We have had little or no trouble in his regard. If we limited the powers of the police authority and the Secretary of State concerning compulsory retiral to chief constables and deputy chief constables, we should be doing really well. We do not want the hierarchy of the police looking over their shoulders all the time at the Secretary of State and the police authorities. This is the Government's mistake. They have been interfering far too much, and the nature of the interference is such as to create a condition of uncertainty and a lack of confidence which will not redound to their credit or to the efficiency of the police.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I have once again considered this Amendment very carefully. We had some discussion on this matter during the Committee stage up-stairs. I agreed with the preliminary remarks of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) when he mentioned how very complicated study of this Schedule can be, with the various references back. But it is the price which we had to pay for ensuring that we got this legislation. We have had a Succession Bill, and at that time a Bill dealing with the countryside should have been before the Scottish Standing Committee.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the noble Lady will take into account the cost as well. It has cost us a Solicitor-General as well.

Lady Tweedsmuir: We are now at the Report stage, so that we have been able to make some progress.
I cannot accept these Amendments. I quite agree that the Amendment in page 39, line 41, is the most important. It would remove the power of a police


authority to retire an assistant chief constable in the interests of efficiency, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The Amendment in page 38, line 45, would be consequential, and I understand that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to remove the safeguards in subsection (2).
The reason that these provisions are in the Bill is that they follow the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which considered that the appointment of assistant chief constable should be in the hands of the police authority, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, in the same way as appointments of chief constables. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock said, this has been accepted. Therefore, the question now is whether the same consideration should apply to the removal from office of deputy and assistant chief constables as applies to the removal of chief constables
I should have thought that the power to retire in the interests of efficiency would follow logically from the power of appointment. In a force where there are assistant chief constables—that is, a force of some size, namely, over 400—the people at the top carry heavy operational responsibilities, and it is important that they should be fully up to them. If the appointments are made by the police authority, it would seem right that it should also have power to require retirement if it proves that the officer fails in some important respect—for example, through a loss of keenness or competence.
It is right that such officers should not be liable to arbitrary dismissal, and for that reason there are written into the new Section 6A safeguards which ensure that any officers threatened with retirement have an opportunity to state their case to the Secretary of State before he determines whether the authority is justified in seeking his removal.
I must advise the House not to accept these Amendments.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Lady has mentioned logic, which is a dangerous thing to do, particularly on the part of the present Government. Will she justify that logic by the application of a different principle to the compulsory retiral of an assistant chief constable?

The hon. Lady knows well that the new Section 6A(1) applies to a chief constable, but not to an assistant chief constable. Why the differential treatment? It is the hon. Lady who is being entirely illogical and we who are logical.

Lady Tweedsmuir: No. It is the hon. Member who is illogical, because, surely, he would not wish to remove the safeguards in subsection (2).

Mr. James Dempsey: The Under-Secretary has spoken about the interests of efficiency of a police authority which has retired a chief constable. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the hon. Lady went further and said that the police authority might find the chief constable on his assistant inefficient or, for some reason, not competent to carry out his duties on behalf of the authority. Frankly, the situation goes much further than that.
Does not the hon. Lady agree that retirement in the interests of efficiency could have nothing to do with the competence of the officer concerned? Possibly, because of the amalgamation, for example, of two forces, an officer must go. Whether the chief constable or the assistant, he could be competent or efficient. This provision in the Schedule specifies that the construction which one might place upon such a state of affairs would be that the person concerned was incompetent. That does not necessarily follow. A most competent chief constable or an assistant might be required to go because two forces were being amalgamated. The Under-Secretary does not take cognisance of this important point, which the Scottish Chief Constables' Association has continually made.
What exactly is wrong with the wording of the existing Police (Scotland) Act, 1956, that it is necessary to replace it by this kind of provision? My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock has tried to impress upon the Under-Secretary that the question of police appointments and relations between a chief constable, his assistant and the police authority have proceeded sweetly for some time. Why interrupt that relationship? Is it because there have been some unpleasant experiences in the south of England? Is it these which


must upset the arrangements which have operated for eight or nine years in Scotland?
The Under-Secretary should tell us frankly the reason for the change. We have had no trouble. The hon. Lady has been unable to specify one instance of the need for suspension or termination of the services of a Scottish police executive officer, whether a chief constable or an assistant. Why is it necessary at this stage to interfere with the smooth running of the Scottish police forces? This is something which I have tried for some time to elucidate, but the reason is still not forthcoming from the noble Lady, who represents the Scottish Office on the Government Front Bench.
4.15 p.m.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, who made an effective case indicating that our administration is as near perfect as could be, it would be interesting to be told why there should be a change. It is bad policy to change something which works well. My hon. Friend's argument took this factor into account, as well as the unique experience which we have had north of the Border which, unfortunately, police

authorities have never been able to enjoy south of the Border. The noble Lady should be forthcoming on this point, which has been strongly emphasised by the Chief Constables' Association of Scotland.

Amendment negatived.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 39, line 12, to leave out from beginning to "but" in line 15 and to insert:
(4) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the whole or any part of the expenses of a chief constable or deputy or assistant chief constable in respect of an inquiry under this section were not reasonably incurred, he may direct the constable to pay those expenses or that part of those expenses, as the case may be, or such proportion of the whole or of that part as he may think fit.
This is an Amendment which was discussed with an earlier one on the English part of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 50 proposed: In page 39, line 41, leave out "assistant".—[Mr. Ross.]

Question put, That "assistant" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 151.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
[4.17 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Allason, James
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Curran, Charles
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hendry, Forbes


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Dance, James
Hiley, Joseph


Barlow, Sir John
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Barter, John
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Batsford, Brian
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Holland, Philip


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Doughty, Charles
Hornby, R. P.


Biffen, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Biggs-Davison, John
Duncan, Sir James
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Bingham, R. M.
Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
Hughes-Young, Michael


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Eden, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Black, Sir Cyril
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Elliott, R. W.(Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
James, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Emery, Peter
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Braine, Bernard
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Brewis, John
Ernoll, Rt. Hon, F. J.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)[...]
Fisher, Nigel
Kitson, Timothy


Bullard, Denys
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cary, Sir Robert
Freeth, Denzil
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Chataway, Christopher
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gammans, Lady
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Litchfield, Capt. John


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gough, Frederick
Longbottom, Charles


Cleaver, Leonard
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Grant-Ferris, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Corfield, F. V.
Gresham Cooke, R.
McLaren, Martin


Coulson, Michael
Gurden, Harold
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy(Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maitland, Sir John




Markham, Major Sir Frank
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Marshall, Sir Douglas
Pounder, Rafton
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Prior, J. M. L.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Mawby, Ray
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Pym, Francis
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Mills, Stratton
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Montgomery, Fergus
Redrnayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Turner, Colin


Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Risdale, Julian
Tweedsmuir, Lady


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rlppon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Roots, William
Walker, Peter


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Russell, Sir Ronald
Ward, Dame Irene


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Scott-Hopkins, James
Webster, David


Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Shaw, M.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Skeet, T. H. H.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Wise, A. R.


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stevens, Geoffrey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Partridge, E.
Stodart, J. A.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Peyton, John
Storey, Sir Samuel



Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Studholme, Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Peel and Mr. MacArthur.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Oram, A. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harper, Joseph
Padley, W. E.


Baoon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.


Barnett, Guy
Healey, Denis
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)
Parker, John


Benn, Anthony Wedgwood
Holman, Percy
Parkin, B. T.


Benson, Sir George
Houghton, Douglas
Pavitt, Laurence


Blackburn, F.
Howie, W.
Peart, Frederick


Blyton, William
Hoy, James H.
Pentland, Norman


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Prentice, R. E.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, Harry


Bowles, Frank
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Bradley, Tom
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Reid, William


Brockway, A. Fenner
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Callaghan, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Ross, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Crosland, Anthony
Kenyon., Clifford
Short, Edward


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silkin, John


Dalyell, Tam
King, Dr. Horace
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Darling, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Small, William


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Marcus
Snow, Julian


Dempsey, James
Loughlin, Charles
Sorensen, R. W.


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Driberg, Tom
McCann, J.
Spriggs, Leslie


Duffy, A. E. P. (Coine Valley)
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacDermot, Niall
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, James
Stones, William


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Stross, Sir Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Symonds, J. B.


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Manuel, Archie
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles
Weitzman, David


Forman, J. C.
Marsh, Richard
White, Mrs. Eirene


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
Whitlock, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, R. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Millan, Bruce
Winterbottom, R. E.


Gourlay, Harry
Monslow, Walter
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mulley, Frederick
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Lawson.


Hamilton, William (West Flfe)
O'Malley, B. K.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 42, line 23, at the end to insert:
10. In section 12, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), after the words "police forces" there shall be inserted the words "or to collaboration agreements", and in paragraph (c) the words "other than a constable" shall be omitted.
These alterations are consequential. That to Section 12(2,b) follows on the new section 16A in paragraph 11 of Schedule 6, and that to paragraph (c) follows on the Amendment we have just made to Section 4(4) of the 1956 Act giving a constable jurisdiction throughout Scotland.

Amendment agreed to.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 43, line 11, at the end to insert:
12 In section 23, for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
(1) Where, immediately before the date when an amalgamation scheme comes into operation, either—

(a) section 29B (1) (a) of this Act, or
(b) section 2 of the Police (Overseas Service) Act 1945,

applied to any person as having been a member of a transferred force, that section shall, unless the amalgamation scheme otherwise provides, apply to him in relation to any period after the said date as if for any reference to the police force to which be was entitled to revert there were substituted a reference to the new force, and references in that section to the appropriate authority shall be construed accordingly".
The effect of this Amendment is that where a police officer originally belonging to a force effected by an amalgamation scheme is away from his home force on central service or with an overseas corps, any right of reversion he has to his home force will become a right of reversion to the new, combined, force unless the amalgamation scheme provides otherwise. The same provision was made in the Section of the 1956 Act that is to be replaced, except that it was restricted to officers on overseas service and there was no provision for any exception in terms of the amalgamation scheme.
Under the new section 29B(1) an officer engaged on central service will no longer be treated as a member of his original force, and so will not be transferred automatically to the new force,

but will have the same right of reversion to his home force as a member of an overseas corps. It is, therefore, necessary to mike similar provision for his return to the combined force after completion of central service if the home force has on the meantime been caught up in an amalgamation.
The reference to the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act, 1939, in the existing Section 23(1), is no longer necessary, since the appropriate provisions of that Act became spent soon after the Police and Firemen (War Service) Acts (End of Emergency) Order, 1947, declared the end of the emergency as 31st December, 1946.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 44, line 7, after "authority" to insert:
shall satisfy itself that the chief constable has laid down a regular procedure for recording and investigating complaints by members of the public a feeling the conduct and efficiency of the police force and every police authority".
The new wording to be imported as Section 23B is:
… Every police authority and inspectors of constabulary shall keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints made by members of the public against members of a police force are dealt with by the chief constable.
Quite frankly, I do not know what effective action arises from this provision. If ever there was a pious piece of prose, this is it. It begs all the questions that have been raised by incidents in Scotland and elsewhere where the public have felt that their complaints have not been properly investigated by the police. Here we have the Government trying to satisfy the people of Scotland by a statement that the police authority shall inform itself how these things are dealt with.
4.30 p.m.
I do not think that these words are even necessary, because police authorities in Scotland at the moment have the right to ask a chief constable to report to them on any matter concerned with the policing of their area. Indeed, I would suggest that investigation of a complaint would be a relevant matter on which they could call for a report. What is required to allay the public


and to give a certain measure of protection to the police themselves is that there should be a regular procedure for recording complaints and investigating them, and part of the follow-up of recording would be the recording of the findings of such an investigation. Only in this way will we be able to allay adequately public feeling that there is a tendency for the public to be pushed off with statements made by a chief constable.
I cannot see how the Government can possible refuse to accept the Amendment. It does not lay down a national procedure, because by the nature of things this would be a matter for each local area to ensure that there is a procedure in that area. I would hope that the public would be informed exactly how to go about making a complaint and how complaints would be dealt with. If the noble Lady will look at the Government's words in the Clause I am sure that she will agree that there is in it some measure of allaying public concern, but without meeting or removing the reasons for the concern.
It would be far better from the point of view of both the police and the public to ensure that the Bill contains words which will enable the public to know how their complaints will be dealt with and to know that it will be open to anyone, and particularly to the police authority, to ensure that the regular procedures are carried out.
If the words of the Amendment are inserted, they will give some substance to the words which are already in the Clause, because then all that the police authority will have to do will be to inspect the records which by Statute we have said must be kept and, having done that, the authority will be able to carry out the responsibilities which the Government have placed upon it to keep itself informed about the way complaints are dealt with. The Clause otherwise will be merely a piece of pious generalisation.
As the Clause stands, the public are left to ask how complaints are made and what happens after they have been made, because inspectors of constabulary have no relationship to the police authority or the police force apart from the duty of inspecting and reporting back to the Secretary of State. The right hon.

Gentleman, in turn, has no powers over the police authority, apart from the power which he has now taken to compel the compulsory retiral of a chief constable.
It would be far better for Parliament, rather than to jump all these serious hurdles, to insist that there shall be regular procedures for dealing with and investigating complaints. I hope that the noble Lady will not say that this is not necessary. I assure her that in the matter of public feeling it certainly is necessary. It was found so necessary in England and Wales that a firm Clause 49 was inserted in the Bill. This gave rise to considerable discussion in Standing Committee and the noble Lady will see from that Clause how important this matter was felt to be in England and Wales.
We do not want to go quite so far in Scotland, but we raised the matter in Committee and we felt that the sympathy of the Committee was with us in the suggestion that we made at that time. The words of the Amendment could be inserted without causing offence to anyone or giving rise to any feeling that we do not exactly trust the police force or the chief constable.
It is reasonable from the point of view of the protection of the police themselves that there should be a regular procedure for them to follow. They will be doing their duty and it will be easy for the police authority to carry out the instructions which have been laid down for it in the new Clause by inspecting these procedures if and when the authority feels called upon to do so.

Lady Tweedsmuir: As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has recalled, we had a considerable discussion in Committee of the recording and investigation of complaints. I certainly recognise that this is one of the matters which most interest the general public, but I must advise the House to reject the Amendments, for reasons which I should now like to give.
Under the new section 11 (2,e) of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1956, on page 41 of the Bill, the Secretary of State will continue to have power to make regulations about discipline, and a committee of the Scottish Police Council is already considering how the existing regulations should be revised. The revised regulations will be laid before Parliament and


it seems clear that they must be the same throughout the country. I suggest that although the Amendment appears at first sight to be very reasonable, it might have the effect that an individual police authority would encourage its chief constable to lay down a special local procedure which might differ from a national standard.
As everyone knows, where there is an allegation that a police officer has committed a criminal offence this is reported to the procurator fiscal and he, and not the chief constable, carries out the investigation according to his own procedure. There is also a third category of complaints which suggest neither a disciplinary nor a criminal offence. The procedure for handling these will also be laid down centrally by the Secretary of State. I do not think that it is necessary or desirable to accept the Amendment merely to ensure that these lesser complaints are recorded and investigated.
At present, the Bill provides merely that every police authority "shall keep themselves informed" about the manner in which complaints are dealt with by the chief constable. The Amendment would oblige the authority to "satisfy itself" about the procedure. I have no quarrel with the word "satisfy", but I think that "keep themselves informed" is perfectly adequate. If the authority is dissatisfied it can unquestionably put its suggestion to the chief constable, and if it is seriously dissatisfied it can require him to retire.

Mr. Dempsey: This is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard in the Chamber. The noble Lady obviously has not studied the purpose of the Amendment with the earnestness that it deserves. The Amendment is concerned with complaints by the public and not complaints against police officers by the authority because of some criminal offence that he or she may have committed. The Amendment is designed to gain the confidence of the general public. It is not intended to encourage the public to make complaints. It is intended to provide some medium whereby members of the public who are aggrieved can express their feelings through the proper channels. The pious generalisation in the Clause, which was

so ably expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), begs the whole question.
If the noble Lady will think of a police authority, especially in a county where there are several divisions and a chief constable and a superintendent, she will appreciate that there can be all sorts of methods, procedures, and organisations for dealing with complaints. Some counties may have very little in the way or organisation for this purpose. I had occasion not so long ago to complain to a police authority. It was not a Lanarkshire police authority, but I was compelled to complain because of the treatment of an apprehended person.
I was given information on the telephone about what was happening, and I conveyed it to the relatives of the apprehended person. Two days later we discovered we had wrong information entirely. When I complained to the chief constable about having been misled, there was not a single record of the telephone conversation of the complaints I had lodged or of the information which I had got. There was not a single record in that police office. It had never been recorded. There was no means of recording it. This seemed to me to be very unsatisfactory.
I recall it now as an illustration of what happens now and to indicate that there is a definite necessity for having some regular means of dealing with complaints by members of the general public. At least, the Amendment sets out some principles by which we could have a complaints machinery established which would operate in every police office in the area of the police authority. It is nothing other than good business to have in the administration a methodical organisation which can deal with problems raised by the general public and satisfy the police authority—or the Members of Parliament for the area—that the police administration is in sound running order.
I was very surprised to hear the noble Lady tell us that there was some difficulty about looking into this. The police are divided, in many respects, on this issue, and I do not think we should find many senior officers of the Scottish police who follow a general pattern for dealing with this problem. They all have individual ideas about it; they


all employ separate initiatives in dealing with this aspect of police administration. That is why, if we were to lay down some general principles and say to the chief constables that they should be responsible for having such an administration, then, of course, we could have some means whereby the members of the public could be satisfied when their complaints are lodged.
I know one authority which has a system of this nature. It works perfectly. There is no reason why that perfection should not be extended to other police authorities. This is not a question of political controversy, nor one affecting the rise and fall of the Government. It is a matter of common sense to have a system whereby the citizen, the ratepayer and the taxpayer, in lodging a complaint, can be satisfied that it is recorded, investigated, and, of course, answered by the chief officer of the police concerned. That is all the Amendment seeks to do.
The noble Lady goes on to tell us that the Secretary of State has powers and can introduce regulations. That is the trouble with the Secretary of State for Scotland. We could spare the Secretary of State a lot of time in introducing regulations if we made this Amendment to the Bill, because it would specify the means whereby complaints by members of the general public could be recorded and dealt with by senior officers of the police themselves. I am at a loss to understand why the noble Lady could not accept the Amendment because whatever advice the police may be able to give and whatever regulations the Secretary of State may be inclined to adopt, it is a set of general principles which the Amendment seeks to include in the Bill. It asks only that we have an administrative system whereby complaints can be dealt with.
We do have a few complaints—I regret to say that—about the police. One consolation, of course, is that they are not always well founded, but we still have some legitimate complaints, because our police, like other sections of the community, are human, and of course, being human, they are inclined to err. It would satisfy the general public and the public representatives if

there were some means whereby aggrieved individuals could air their feelings, their convictions in some cases, and have them cleared up, and that would be to the benefit of the public and the police alike.
4.45 p.m.
It is for that reason that the Amendment is very sound sense, because it seeks to say that the chief constable shall do this in the interests of the efficiency of the police force and in the interests of the efficiency of the authority concerned. I should like to hear the noble lady say in what way this set of general principles can conflict with any regulations the Secretary of State might make or any advice which, for instance, the Police Council can give. We have police federations in Scotland; we have the Chief Constables Association in Scotland. They have from time to time discussed matters of this nature. The noble Lady will be aware of them. I cannot visualise any single chief constable or police authority taking exception to the Amendment my hon. Friend has so ably moved from the Dispatch Box.
I ask the hon. Lady, therefore, surely this is not so far-reaching an Amendment that it could not be accepted in its intent? Surely it would not create any disagreeable repercussions for the Bill or for the policing of Scotland in general to embrace at least the intentions of the Amendment? I have quite a bit of experience of meeting members of the public and arranging interviews with chief constables and with superintendents. I have done this repeatedly, and I find that if we have mechanics of this nature they do lead to the elimination of all misunderstanding and to the building up of confidence by the general public in the efficiency and impartiality of the police forces in Scotland.
The Amendment is aimed at promoting that kind of understanding, and I feel that the noble Lady should accept it.

Miss Alice Bacon: If I may intervene for a moment, merely as an Englishwoman, I should like to put one or two points to the noble Lady. If she were to accept the Amendment, even so the position in Scotland would not then be as satisfactory as this Bill makes the position in England and


Wales. I cannot see why it is impossible to do for Scotland what this Bill does for England and Wales.
The new Section 23B which the Amendment seeks to amend contains words which are almost identical with the words of Clause 50, which says that
Every police authority in carrying out their duty…shall keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints from members of the public against members of the force are dealt with by the chief officer of police.
Those words are a follow-up of Clause 49(1).
Clause 49(1) says:
Where the chief officer of police for any police area receives a complaint from a member of the public against a member of the police force for that area he shall (unless the complaint alleges an offence with which the member of the police force has then been charged) forthwith record the complaint and cause it to be investigated…".
This is very much stronger than the position will be in Scotland, even if the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is accepted.
I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lady say that one of the reasons why she could not accept the Amendment was that the Secretary of State for Scotland intended to revise the disciplinary regulations. In the Standing Committee which dealt with the English and Welsh parts of the Bill we were told by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he, the Home Secretary, also intended to revise the disciplinary regulations for England and Wales, but the fact that the English and Welsh disciplinary regulations are to be revised does not make it impossible for us in England and Wales to have Clause 49(1). It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock is being very modest in putting forward this Amendment, because, as I say, even if we accept it, the position would then, in the case of complaints against the police in Scotland, not be as satisfactory as the English and Welsh position is under Clause 49.

Mr. George Lawson: It seems to me that the kind of answer that the noble Lady is likely to give to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) is that we in

Scotland do not need the changes that are being made in England and Wales because the situation is so much more satisfactory in Scotland. This is the kind of argument that has already been advanced, and I have no doubt that the kind of argument that will continue to be advanced. I find it very difficult to believe that this is so.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) saying that he had actually lodged a complaint, or had sought to lodge a complaint, by telephone, concerning the police, and that, subsequently, it was found that no record taken of the complaint was being made. I presume that my hon. Friend when he raised this question, or sought to do so, said who he was. If, when a Member of Parliament lodges a complaint, a situation can arise where no record is taken of that complaint, what will be the situation that we can expect when a member of the public, in the normal sense, lodges a complaint?
Can the noble Lady tell us whether this was a freak or unique occasion? Can she tell us that there is already established in Scotland, and working in Scotland, means whereby any such complaint lodged is recorded? Can she describe to us the machinery for such recording? If so, can she explain why it is that other Members of Parliament, who have had difficulties in this matter, have found that it was often exceedingly difficult to establish what had happened in the past? If records had been taken, there would have been no difficulty in establishing certain questions or giving answers to certain questions that they may have raised.
I am sure that all of us have found on occasion that if some time has elapsed, a month or two, and then the question is probed and there is no record, the whole matter has to be started from the beginning, from the ground up wards as it were. It seems that the only justification for the hon. Lady's argument—and I repeat "only"—is if she can assure us that the machinery in Scotland is already adequate for doing under the Bill what it does as it applies to England and Wales. From my own experience, and knowledge arising out of discussions with my hon. Friends, I find it very difficult to believe


that this is so. I shall expect the hon. Lady to explain this to me.
There is another point. If there is something that might partake of a criminal nature and there is an allegation against the police that there has been some criminal offence, the hon. Lady has already told us, and we were told in Committee by the former Solicitor-General for Scotland, that the established machinery was that such complaint always went to the procurator fiscal and it was for him to act on it. I raised at that time doubts whether this always happened. I put forward the view that in many cases the chief constable himself might judge whether this was a criminal case and whether it should be reported to the procurator fiscal.
I said then, and I repeat it to the noble Lady, that, with respect to what the Solicitor-General had to say on that occasion as to this machinery being the established machinery, operating without exception, I knew of one particular exception, although I am not giving the details. When this was said to Scottish Members of Parliament, I think that I am correct in saying that my hon. Friends were surprised at this information.
Certainly, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who, only a short time before, had discussed with me certain difficulties that he had had with complaints of this sort, expressed his surprise that this was supposed to be the established means whereby such complaints were dealt with.
If there was any reason for surprise by Scottish Members at the machinery being there and their knowing nothing about it, it seems to me that one can suspect that this machinery had not been functioning adequately in all cases, and that we ought to be able to have this explained to us adequately and be shown where it is in fact functioning. We might, for example, have evidence from a police report that complaints had come up and had been dealt with in a certain way. Is this a regular feature of police reports being discussed always by the police authority? This is the kind of thing that we ought to be assured about.
As far as my experience takes me—and I am not saying that the police forces of which I have any knowledge

are worse than any other police forces; in many cases they are probably substantially better—I put it to the noble Lady that there is great doubt about the efficacy of such machinery, so the very fact that many of us have not been aware of it being in existence must be taken as evidence that something has been wrong.
I think that most of us, not frequently but upon occasions, have had difficulties concerning our constituents who have been confronted with this type of stumbling block and who have found it exceedingly difficult to have matters probed adequately so that they can be satisfied that justice was being done.
It is not in our own interest that there is a strong suspicion about the police force. We do not wish to see this. We wish to see the police forces very highly respected, and I am sure that I speak for all my hon. Friends in saying this. But there exists a suspicion, and the very fact that we have this Bill, which applies to England and Wales, with this bit added for Scotland, is evidence of this suspicion.
I repeat that the police are no worse in Scotland than in England and Wales in this respect, but if it is necessary to provide machinery, machinery that can be easily understood, to operate in England and Wales, we ought to be assured, not merely on the word of the noble Lady but on the basis of adequate evidence, that like machinery is not necessary for Scotland.
Finally, on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East, it seems to me that the second leg of the argument of the noble Lady is that it is unnecessary to accept this Amendment because of the examination into the discipline of the police force with a view to putting forward regulations which shall apply over the whole country. It seems to me that if this does not make it unnecessary for specific procedure to be laid down locally in terms of how complaints shall be recorded and investigated in England and Wales, it should certainly not make it unnecessary in Scotland. If this does not make nonsense of local recording methods in England and Wales, then it should not make nonsense of such practice in Scotland. This is a very weak argument.
We wish to see adequate machinery by means of which the public can be assured that if they have a complaint it will be recorded without fail in all instances and that if it warrants it, it will be investigated, and that if somebody does not think it warrants investigation the record of the complaint will nevertheless exist and can be referred back to so that we can find out why it was not investigated at the proper time. If the noble Lady tells us that the Amendment is unnecessary, she will have to do much more in explaining the practices which make it unnecessary.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I hope the noble Lady is seized of the importance that we attach to the Amendment. The genesis of the Bill, in part at least, was the deteriorating relationships between the police and the public. Therefore, any part of the Bill dealing with these relationships ought to be treated as important and considered in detail by the House.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) will not be satisfied with even the most complete assurances by the noble Lady about current practice. Assurances in this House are not enough. They are not enough even with regard to England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) referred to Clause 49, which states that the chief officer of police:
shall forthwith record the complaint and cause it to be investigated…and shall…request the chief officer of police for any other police area to provide an officer of the police force for that area to carry out the investigation.
All that is stated in specific terms, I can see no reason why there should not be a similar definition in the Scottish Schedule.
The words that we seek to amend suggest that a complaint will be investigated after the event by the police authority. It suggests that the police authority will keep itself informed about the manner in which complaints made by members of the public shall be dealt with. In other words, a complaint might be made by a member of the public, and it might or it might not be recorded by the chief constable; at any rate, it is only afterwards that

the police authority will be able to assess whether or not the complaint has been dealt with satisfactorily.
If the Amendment is accepted, there will be a definite yardstick to which the police authority will be able to refer before a complaint is made and after it is made, and it will then be able to judge with some measure of accuracy whether or not the chief constable has conformed to a practice which is laid down in law. It is much more desirable that that should happen, as it will in England, when Clause 49 comes into operation. Unless this specific provision is incorporated in respect of Scotland, we shall have trouble of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) when he spoke of the complaint that he made to a police force.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Perhaps I may speak again by leave of the House to reply to the points that have been made.
First, the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) mentioned an occasion when he made a complaint by telephone and no record was kept. There is a subsequent Amendment on the Notice Paper which suggests that the complaint should be in writing and should not be accepted over the telephone. I cannot reply to the hon. Gentleman about a particular case, but I would certainly try to investigate the case if he would like, even at this late hour, to give me details.

Mr. Dempsey: Perhaps I might just mention that the matter has been investigated through the courtesy of the chief constable, who has established that no record was taken, but I am happy to say that he believed me implicitly when I said I had made a complaint.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Perhaps it will ensure that a record is kept in future.
The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) referred to Clause 49(1) and asked why Scotland was not following the procedure in the English part of the Bill. I cannot resist saying that she will have noticed that generally in police matters Scotland has been far ahead of England and Wales, if I may be allowed to introduce a little matter of nationality into the debate. I


suppose that we probably could have accepted the substance of Clause 49(1) for Scotland, for it seems in a way perfectly harmless, except that one would have had to make different arrangements in Scotland because of the different arrangements with the Procurator-Fiscal.
The hon. Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) asked what the practice is north of the Border. We are talking about three types of complaint here. There are complaints of a disciplinary character, those which may involve offences of a criminal character, and those which affect matters of much lesser importance. Procedure exists in Scotland to deal with the first two categories. Every report or allegation about discipline has to be recorded. That appears in Regulation 16 of the Police Discipline (Scotland) Regulations, 1952.
There is also the arrangement which was referred to in paragraph 437 of the Royal Commission's Report whereby any complaint alleging a criminal offence is referred to the procurator-fiscal, who will himself take charge of the investigation. The hon. Member for Motherwell queried whether this was uniformly the case. From inquiries that I have made, I am not aware that this is not universally the case. Naturally, I have not inquired personally of 'every authority, but I am assured by the chief constable in my part of the country that this is always the case.

Mr. Lawson: The noble Lady will have regular access to the reports from the chief constables of all the authorities, and I think she will agree that if the practice were regularly carried out it would regularly appear in those reports. Can she tell me, if not now, soon, whether or not there is evidence that this is being regularly done and reported on in the annual reports of chief constables?

Lady Tweedsmuir: To give the hon. Member an absolutely accurate reply I should like a little notice, but, on the converse side of it, I am not aware of any complaints in this respect.

Mr. Bruce Millan: rose—

Lady Tweedsmuir: I cannot give way at the moment.
I now come to the third category, the one with which we are really dealing. I accept that there is at present no administrative or statutory requirement in Scotland that all complaints by members of the public against the police should be recorded. I also naturally accept that the Royal Commission recommended that regulations should provide that every complaint, however trivial and from whatever source, should be recorded in a complaints book. While this has been accepted in principle in Scotland, it has not been thought necessary so far to make specific provision in the Bill. This is because, as I have already told the House, a committee of the Scottish Police Council is inquiring into the whole question of disciplinary procedure and the handling of complaints.
Therefore, although we could possibly have accepted the Amendment in order to put it in a statutory form, we felt that the more reasonable way to approach this problem was to await the result of the consultations now taking place. Any Amendments which prove necessary can be carried out by means of regulations.
It is true that the Royal Commission made a recommendation on these lines, and that is exactly why we have seen to it that the subject is now being investigated by the Police Council. What the Bill does for Scotland is to make a new provision—Clause 23(b)—for police authorities and inspectors of constabulary to keep themselves informed as to the manner in which complaints against the police are dealt with by the chief constables. This should ensure that complaints are satisfactorily dealt with.
If a chief constable fails to deal with complaints satisfactorily, it will be possible, in using Parliamentary language, I will not say to sack him, but to ask for his retirement in due course. We must get clear in our minds the category of complaints with which we are dealing. They are the third and perhaps the less serious types. I cannot forecast in detail what the Police Council will recommend, but I expect that the existing procedure, modified by the provisions of this Bill, and, no


doubt, by improvements which the Council will recommend, will make reasonable and proper provision for ensuring that complaints against the police are effectively handled.
I accept what the hon. Member for Fife, West said—that we want what he called a yardstick of procedure which will also ensure that confidence is retained between the police and the public. While the point of the Bill is to try to ensure the efficient discharge by the police of their very difficult functions, I join those hon. Members who have paid tribute to the work of the police throughout Scotland.

Mr. Millan: I am sorry to prolong this discussion, but the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State would not give way when I wanted to refer to the matter. She said that investigation with regard to criminal offences was by the procurator-fiscal. Is that correct? Surely the investigation is by the chief constable and the

papers are sent to the procurator-fiscal who decides whether or not a prosecution should be made. That is quite a different thing from what she said.

There is everything to be said for laying down some regular procedure as to the way in which chief constables regard complaints of this kind and carry out investigations. The procurator-fiscal's decision depends on information passed to him by the chief constable, since he himself does not go into the facts, having neither the staff nor the facilities. Indeed it is not part of his duty to do so.

I find the hon. Lady's attitude most extraordinary. This is a very simple Amendment and everyone agrees that its purpose is desirable. It is lamentable that the Government should fail to accept it.

Question put, That those words he there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 191.

Division No. 57.]
AYES
[5.14 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
McBride, N.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vate)
McCann, John


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Forman, J. C.
MacColl, James


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mclnnes, James


Barnett, Guy
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm


Been, Anthony Wedgwood
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Benson, Sir George
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, Archie


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mapp, Charles


Blyton, William
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Marsh, Richard


Boardman, H.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mason, Roy


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mellish, R. J.


Bowles, Frank
Hannan, William
Mendelson, J. J.


Bradley, Tom
Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hayman, F. H.
Monslow, Walter


Brockway, A. Fenner
Healey, Denis
Moody, A. S.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mulley, Frederick


Callaghan, James
Holman, Percy
Oliver, C. H.


Carmichael, Neil
Houghton, Douglas
O'Malley, B. K.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Howie, W.
Oram, A. E.


Cliffe, Michael
Hoy, James H.
Padley, W. E,


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paget, R. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Crosland, Anthony
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parker, John


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dalyell, Tam
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Darling, George
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Peart, Frederick


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pentland, Nerman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Prentice, R. E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Randall, Harry


Diamond, John
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rankin, John


Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Redhead, E. C.


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Driberg, Tom
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reid, William


Duffy, A. E. P. (Coine Valley)
King, Dr. Horace
Rhodes, H.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Loughlin, Charles
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)


Evans, Albert
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ross, William


Fernyhough, E.

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)




Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Steele, Thomas
White, Mrs. Eirene


Silkin, John
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Whitlock, William


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Stones, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Skeffington, Arthur
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Willey, Frederick


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Symonds, J. B.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Small, William
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Snow, Julian
Tomney, Frank
Woof, Robert


Soreneen, R. W.
Wainwright, Edwin



Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Watkins, Tudor
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and




Mr. Lawson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Aliason, James
Gower, Raymond
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Balniet, Lord
Green, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Barlow, Sir John
Gurden, Harold
Partridge, E.


Barter, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peel, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peyton, John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Biffen, John
Harvey, John (Waithamstow, E.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Biggs-Davison, John
Hastings, Stephen
Pitman, Sir James


Bingham, R. M.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pounder, Rafton


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hendry, Forbes
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bishop, Sir Patrck
Hitey, Joseph
Prior, J. M. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brewis, John
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hornby, R. P.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Bryan, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hen. Martin


Bullard, Derrys
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hughes Hailett, Vice-Admiral John
Ridsdale, Julian


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Cary, Sir Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Russell, Sir Ronald


Chataway, Christopher
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Chichester-Clark, R.
James, David
Seymour, Leslie


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jennings, J. C.
Shaw, M.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Cleaver, Leonard
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cordle, John
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, J. A.


Corfield, F. V.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir Malcolm


Coulson, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Storey, Sir Samuel


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Studholme, Sir Henry


Critohley, Julian
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Litchfield, Capt. John
Taylor, Edwin (Belton, E.)


Curran, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longbottom, Charles
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
MacArthur, Ian
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Doughty, Charles
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Drayson, G. B.
Maginnis, John E.
Turner, Colin


Duncan, Sir James
Maitland, Sir John
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duthie, Sir William (Banff)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Eden, Sir John
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Walker, Peter


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'le-upon-Tyne, N.)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Ward, Dame Irene


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Webster, David


Enroll, Rt. Hen. F. J.
Mawby, Ray
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Fell, Anthony
Maydon, Lt. Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Finlay, Graeme
Mills, Stratton
Wise, A. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Freeth, Denzil
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Neave, Airey



Gammans, Lady
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Mr. McLaren and Mr. Ian Fraser.


Gyln, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Sir Myer Galpern: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 44, line 11, at the end to insert:

Method of making and dealing with Complaints

23c.—(1) A police authority shall take notice of a complaint against members of a police force only if the complaint had been made in writing to the Chief Constable, in the manner prescribed by the following subsection:—
(2) The Secretary of State shall prescribe a form on which complaints against members of a police force shall be made, and he shall prescribe a uniform procedure to be used in defiling with complaints".

During the course of the afternoon, the noble Lady has constantly referred to Clause 23B and, while elaborating on its contents, has said that she would welcome a national standard of registering complaints in the circumstances mentioned. However, Clause 23B does not in the least achieve a national standard, for it is open to any police authority to make arrangements for dealing with complaints in any way it chooses and it is open to the inspectors merely to inspect the manner in which complaints are recorded.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has already highlighted one of the weaknesses of the present system. He spoke of telephoning a complaint against a constable and then having a dispute about whether the complaint had been received. In his case, presumably because he was a Member of Parliament, the chief constable concerned was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and to accept his statement that the complaint had been made by telephone.

One-third of the complaints against police come from irate motorists who in some way have transgressed the motoring law and who are so incensed by the action of the constable who has "booked" them that they rush to the nearest telephone kiosk to make a complaint. Could not similar disputes arise as to whether such a complaint had been received? Similarly, an individual may make a complaint against a policeman on the beat who may say, "If that is the way you feel, I will report it", and may then not do so. Again there will be a dispute about whether the complaint had been made.

In order to obviate these difficulties, chief constables would welcome an entirely new set-up such as that suggested in my Amendment. When a complaint is made by a member of the public against a member of the police force, the complainant should first realise the seriousness of the action he is taking. All too often when there are newspaper reports of a case against a policeman there is a rash of complaints from people who have been encouraged by what they have read to make their own complaints. One complaint against the police force often begets 100 more in a short time. The possible serious consequences for the individual complained of should be clearly explained to the member of the public making the complaint, who should be able to think it over and decide whether it is just and reasonable.

The complaint should not be made by telephone. Is there any commercial or industrial undertaking which would listen to a complaint against one of its own officers made by someone speaking from a telephone kiosk? Would not the immediate reply be that the complaint should be made in person or in writing? The policeman has to be protected as much as Life member of the public, for the serving policeman in the discharge of his duties may do something which is not well liked by that member of the public. Before any complaint is even considered, it should be made in writing.

It may be argued that the ordinary man is not too well schooled in these matters and may not know how to go about it. The Royal Commission dealt with that when in paragraph 451 it said:
It is not to be expected that most people who wish to complain about the conduct of a police officer will be familiar with the way in which their complaint is dealt with. Ignorance is all too likely to beget suspicion, and we recommend that a standard explanatory leaflet be brought into use throughout the police service containing brief notes on the procedure adopted for dealing with complaints. Such a leaflet should be given to every complainant as a matter of course.

5.30 p.m.

This form could be handed to an individual who arrived at the police office after telephoning his complaint. He would there be given the information on how to complete it. The Royal Commission recognised the need for a standard practice in making complaints.


What is unreasonable in asking that a member of the public who makes what may well be a serious charge against a police officer should do so in writing? Some people may argue that because of a lack of education an individual may not be able to put his complaint in writing, but the officer on duty at the bar of the police station will have the duty of helping such an individual to put his complaint into the proper form.

It is no good saying that because there there are so many types of complaints different forms will have to be issued. When an insurance company asks an insured person to report on an accident in which he has been involved, it does not issue him with a green, yellow, or blue, form according to the type of accident. He is issued with a standard form on which he reports his accident and makes his claim.

One standard complaint form will be sufficient for the purpose of making a complaint. If the individual is unable to complete the form, he will be assisted by the officer on duty at the police station. The questions to be answered will be laid down by the Secretary of State for Scotland. This will ensure that there is a uniform procedure, whether the complaint is being made in Lanark-shire, or Dunbartonshire, or anywhere else. As the hon. Lady admitted, there ought to be a national standard form for dealing with this important matter.

If the complaint is made in writing, there can be no argument at a later date about whether a complaint had, in fact, been made. The evidence will be there. The complaint will be in writing and there can be no possible argument whether it was made over the telephone or to the officer on the beat.

If the complaint is made in writing, it will be a form of protection for the police force, because it will enable the person complaining to think over what he is doing. Instead of just rushing in to the police station and making a verbal complaint, he will have time in which to think about the seriousness of his intended action. It will give him time to think over the event and decide in a calmer atmosphere whether he has in fact been wronged, or whether the constable was perhaps right in what he did, or failed to do. It will also stop

people making frivolous complaints such as having seen someone climbing through a window with the help of a policeman.

The proposed procedure will not mean that a police authority will interfere because a complaint is made in writing. All that the Amendment seeks to do is to provide the form in which the complaint will be made. It will be prescribed by the Secretary of State, and will be of a national pattern.

Since this matter was debated in Committee upstairs I have given it considerable thought, and I have discussed it with the chief constables of Glasgow. They are in complete agreement with it, and are anxious that there should be a standard form of complaint. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will accept the Amendment. It is not good enough to say that the police authority will deal with complaints. We ought to lay down a proper method of dealing with complaints by the public. I repeat that by doing so we shall protect both the public and the police. If the complaints are made in writing, they will not be subject to the whims and caprices of people who may object to a certain policeman, or merely because motorists are annoyed at being "booked".

Lady Tweedsmuir: We must all recognise the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman has approached his task of trying to frame an Amendment which would meet the problems he has posed, but he will not be surprised if I tell him that I cannot accept it at this stage, just as I could not accept it at an earlier stage.
The hon. Gentleman admitted that there were defects in the Amendment. He referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) who pointed out that one must be able to make complaints by telephone, and, of course, the Amendment provides specifically for them to be made in writing.
There is also the fact that members of the public who have genuine complaints may be frightened to come forward and say so.

Sir M. Galpern: How do they make them?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I am not referring only to those people who are not able


to express themselves very well in writing. I think that to prescribe a form in the rather rigid manner envisaged in the Amendment would not meet all the types of complaints which we have in mind.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was concerned to try to protect the police. I am glad that he mentioned that, because when we talk about complaints by the public against the police we are often in danger of failing to realise that the police themselves have to be protected against what the hon. Gentleman described as frivolous complaints.
For the reason that I gave on an earlier Amendment, that the Scottish Police Council is examining this question, and because of the defect in the Amendment itself, I ask the House not to accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment No. 58 proposed: In page 45, line 40, at the end to insert:
(4) Where the report of the person holding an inquiry under this section is not published, a summary of his findings and conclusions shall be made known by the Secretary of State so far as appears to him consistent with the public interest.—[Lady Tweedsmuir.]

Question proposed, That those words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from "State" to the end of the proposed Amendment.
I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee that considered the Bill, and I am not as clear as I otherwise would have been about what matters can be investigated by a local inquiry ordered by the Secretary of State, but since the provision is expressed in the most general terms the Secretary of State could presumably order an inquiry into literally any matter affecting a local police force. I would assume that an inquiry of this sort would normally be into an extremely serious matter.
In those circumstances, it makes a great deal of difference, from the point of view of public confidence, whether or not the report of an inquiry is published. At the moment there is no provision for the publication of such a report if the inquiry is held in private. Now, as a result of the Government Amendment,

a summary of the report may be published once the report has been received by the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, however, the provision includes the words
so far as appears to him"—
the Secretary of State—
consistent with the public interest
I wonder whether those words are required. The provision could mean that in certain circumstances a report would not be published at all: there would be no kind of summary of findings or conclusions. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which it would be possible to hold that it would not be in the public interest to make available to the public a summary of the findings and conclusions of an inquiry of this sort, and it therefore seems completely unnecessary to incorporate this qualifying phrase in the Amendment.
If we agree to the Amendment as it is at present we may render nugatory its ostensible intention. On all these matters we want absolute frankness. The publication of a summary of findings and conclusions seems to me qualification enough, compared with the publication of a full report. I can see no need for any further qualification in the public interest. In every case I would think that the public interest would demand that at least a summary of the fir dings and conclusions be published. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lady will find it possible to accept my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

5.45 p.m

Lady Tweedsmuir: We missed the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) in Committee. He has taken a leading part on almost every other Bill that has affected Scotland. When the English part of the Bill was discussed my right hon. Friend made it clear that an Amendment in exactly similar terms to this would be moved in Schedule 6, and that was accepted. No query was made about the effect of the third line in the Amendment, which the hon. Member for Craigton seeks to omit.
I suggest to the hon. Member that it would not be wise to leave out the words:
so far as appears to him"—


that is, the Secretary of State—
consistent with the public interest".
He quite rightly said that if it was felt that the publication even of the conclusions and findings in a summary form was unwise it would be for some fairly serious reasons. We are talking about a local inquiry, which may be held into any matter connected with the policing of any area. This is a very wide power, and it is impossible to forecast in detail how it will be used. We hope that it will be used rarely.
But it is conceivable that an inquiry might have to go into matters touching on national security. In such a case I suggest that it would be clearly wrong to publish the findings and conclusions. Although this security consideration will not arise very often, the inquiry might also touch upon police methods, and I would regard it as being unwise in that case, too, to broadcast the methods used. For those reasons I suggest that the best course would be for the hon. Member to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I find it very difficult to accept the conclusions of the noble Lady, certainly in respect of the instances that she has given. We are here dealing with local inquiries, and I would not have thought that they raised such high sounding and terrifying conclusions as those to which she referred. In a case where matters are as serious as the hon. Lady has instanced the Secretary of State would obviously exercise his discretion and hold the inquiry in private. But I presume that a local inquiry arises out of concern on the part of the public about some aspect of police procedure or some failure of the police. The public will know that an inquiry has been held.
The discretion of the Secretary of State consists, first, in deciding whether or not there shall be an inquiry and, if he decides that there shall be, whether or not it shall be in private. We are limiting our concern here only to those inquiries which are held in private. The Government Amendment apparently provides that the Secretary of State can say that nothing at all will be published. There is no doubt that the last line of the Amendment gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power not to publish at all.
This is utterly ridiculous. If there is a matter of such importance that a local inquiry must be held because it is a local matter, that inquiry is of public concern, even if it is held in private. Whether or not she meant to say so, the noble Lady indicated that the Secretary of State reserves the right not to publish the findings of the person in charge of the inquiry, quite apart from the summary of evidence. Some report ought to be available to the public.
I cannot see exactly how we are restricting the Secretary of State to the terrifying extent referred to by the noble Lady if we delete the third line of the Amendment. I do not accept that the Secretary of State would be so foolish as to endanger the safety of this realm by including in his summary something that is really explosive. We do not want to give the Secretary of State such a complete blanket censorship as to render nugatory the suggestion that the Government are going some way towards meeting the complaints that have rightly been made that if there is no publication in respect of a private inquiry the public will not be reassured. I hope that the Government will consider the matter again.

Mr. Peter Doig: I am concerned about the type of inquiry and the way in which it may be conducted. If we were to have the sort of inquiry that was held recently in Dundee, all sorts of strange things might happen or be said. In the inquiry to which I refer, there was a dispute about what had been said by a person before he went to lunch and what he said afterwards. In an attempt to clarify the matter, the person concerned asked that the shorthand note should be read, which surely was a reasonable request. But the person conducting the inquiry refused to allow this to be done. Some rather strange statements were made during the inquiry which did not appear in the subsequent report. If that is the way inquiries are to be conducted, both local authorities and the public will be apprehensive.
We should insist that any inquiry is conducted in a reasonable and clear way and that anyone who may feel that he has been slandered, or anyone giving evidence, should have access to the shorthand note of the proceedings. In a great


many cases witnesses at such inquiries are members of local authorities and have given up their spare time to serve the public without recompense. The type of inquiry which we are considering causes grave concern. I hope that the Government will learn from past mistakes and that future inquiries will be conducted in an open manner. Then there would be no need to try to hide anything or refuse to publish a full report of what happened. It is in the public interest and in the interest of fair play that all evidence should be available, particularly to any witnesses or anyone who may consider himself slandered.

Mr. William Hannan: I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State to look at subsection (1), which states:
The Secretary of State may cause a local inquiry to be held by a person appointed by him into any matter connected with the policing of any area".
That is a matter of routine and is not connected with any important aspect of police work relating to security, or any of the matters which were mentioned by the noble Lady. Subsections (3) to (9) of Section 355 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, will apply, and the noble Lady has not said what those subsections contain. Someone is appointed to hold an inquiry and has the power to call for witnesses and for papers and to take statements on oath. Witnesses would not be required to reveal documents or make statements which they would not be required to do in a court of law. This suggests to me that the noble Lady has exaggerated the importance of the kind of inquiry which is likely to take place.
What would be her answer if asked what the Government would do in an inquiry such as took place in the constituency of her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson)? I agree that this inquiry was of a different kind, but surely it was in the public interest that it should be held. It was right and proper that the public should be informed of what took place, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has made a good point. As was indicated in the discussions on previous Amendments, none of us

wishes to do anything to hamper the police in the performance of the important and dangerous job which they have to do. But, at the same time, incidents occur whirr require the public interest to be safeguarded. Occasionally reprimands or inquiries must be held. In view of these considerations, I ask that the noble Lady reconsider her statement.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) thought that all the evidence should be revealed. It has been accepted that there are times when inquiries must be held in private and that if all the evidence were made available the whole point of the inquiry would be defeated. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) referred to what was called the Thurso case. This was conducted under the provisions of the tribunal of inquiry procedure, which was a rather heavy procedure and was criticised by the Royal Commission. For this reason we decided on this type of inquiry, which goes further than the Royal Commission recommended, although it reflects the views of an earlier Royal Commission. We consider it important to be able to compel the attendance of witnesses.
I do not think that the subsection to be added to the Bill would be improved by deleting the last line. There are times when the Secretary of State must exercise his discretion about what findings or conclusions should or should not be made public.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 46, line 14, to leave out from "may" to "refer" in line 15 and to insert
after consultation with the police authority
This wording which I seek to amend is not new. It appears very much earlier in the Bill as Clause 12(3). It is word for word something put into the English part. It deals with reports which may be required by police authorities from chief constables. That states that if a chief constable thinks that such information which is required is not in the public interest to disclose or not needed for the discharge of the police authority, he


may request that authority to refer the requirement to the Secretary of State.
That may be satisfactory to our English colleagues, but we have been told by the Under-Secretary of State that Scotland is well ahead in police matters. England and Wales are bumbling towards democratic control of police affairs which we have had for a long time in Scotland. Chief constables in Scotland, under Section 34(1) of the Police Act, 1956—which was not the first word on this matter, but was a consolidation Measure—have laid on them a requirement that when asked by certain authorities for information they shall give it
being matters connected with the policing of the area for which the force is maintained.
It is not just the police authority which can ask for reports. The Secretary of State for Scotland can ask for reports. The sheriff of an area can ask for a report by a police authority in a county area. Magistrates of a burgh can ask the policy authority for a report as well as the police authority of a burgh.
Here the Government are slavishly following the bad example given in England by putting this into Scottish legislation. I want to know why. Has there been any trouble between police authorities and chief constables in Scotland about the power they have had and exercised for so long which is now to be restricted? This is a very unwise thing to do if it is unnecessary. We should be looking at legislation from the experience of the past and not from the immaturity of England and Wales. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) will support us, for the better we make Bills in Scotland the better eventually will be the Bills for England.
The Government are singling out the police authority. They are not placing this restriction on the sheriff. They regard him as part of the Establishment because he is appointed by themselves, by the "great approver". They are placing no such restriction on magistrates of a burgh but only on the police authority. The magistrates are part of that authority because the whole council is the police authority. In Committee, we objected that it should be-done in this way. We do not want to

repeat our objections; you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow us to do so.
The Government suggest that if a chief constable thinks that some information asked for is not in the public interest to disclose or is not connected with the policing of the area, he should tell the police authority his opinion and if the authority wants to further a case it will have to get into touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland. What a job that will be. I presume that eventually the Secretary of State would reply to the police authority, but suppose he opposes the police authority? The police authority would write again to the chief constable and he eventually would write back to the police authority. There would be about six stages in these proceedings.
I hope that the noble Lady has worked out how many stages there would be if, to achieve the same object, she followed my suggestion. My suggestion is that when there is a disagreement the two sides should get together. There should be discussions and the chief constable should get in touch with the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State told him to comply with the requirements of the police authority the whole proceeding would be considerably short-circuited.
What is suggested, for the first time, by the Government would inevitably drive a wedge between the chief constable and the police authority. I hope that the English Under-Secretary to the Home Office has had a few second thoughts about what he said in a very rambling speech one night some time ago. The Government are telling the police authority where they can get off. That is not guaranteed to create harmony. We suggest that there should be immediate discussions between the police authority and the chief constable. If they do not settle the matter in favour of one or the other, it should be up to the chief constable to refer to the Secretary of State, who himself would directly reply to the police authority.
By that means at least two stages would be saved. We should also save a cleavage and growth of discontent between the persons concerned and they would come to a solution very much quicker than under the suggestion made by the Government. I hope that the


noble Lady has read the speech of her hon. Friend the English Under-Secretary, because that is how not to deal with this matter. If she wants this proceeding satisfactorily imported into the Scottish part of the Bill, the best way to do it is suggested in my Amendment. We would rather that it were not done at all. It has not been proved by experience to be necessary but if it must be done this would be a much tidier way and a way which would retain harmony between the police authority and the chief constable.

Lady Tweedsmuir: The effect of this Amendment would be to make a chief constable who failed to comply with a requirement to submit a report to the police authority responsible himself for referring the requirement to the Secretary of State after consultation with the authority.

Mr. Ross: The noble Lady must not slip over the words
after consultation with the police authority".
as though they do not matter. After consultation with the authority the matter may be settled. These are important words.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I certainly agree that they are most important. Therefore, I stress
after consultation with the police authority".
Under the Bill it is for the police authority to refer the matter to the Secretary of State where there is a dispute. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) maintains that his Amendment would provide a tidier method of dealing with this procedure. It is true that, in practice, the Secretary of State would wish to hear both sides of the case. I do not think, therefore, that there would be any effective difference if I accepted the Amendment.
But may I put this point to the hon. Gentleman? If the request were to come from the chief constable there would be a need, in any case, for the Secretary of State to consult the police authority. The fact that the request is made through the police authority avoids any suggestion that the chief constable is going behind the back of the police authority.

Mr. ROSS: I suggested that the noble Lady should forget all about the speech made by the Secretary of State. That is exactly what he said. It may have had some relevance in that case, but it has no relevance here. In this case, there have been discussions between the police authority and the chief constable, and he could not possibly be going behind the authority's back. He must have acted on the basis of having had discussions and there having been no agreement.

Lady Tweedsmuir: There is certain substance in the hon. Member's argument, and I confess that I do not feel very strongly about retaining these words. But I put it to him that if the Secretary of State then communicates his decision and it goes back to the chief constable, in a way might be thought to by-pass the local authority. I am, however, more convinced by his argument that we want to keep ahead of England and Wales in all these matters. If I accept the Amendment we shall be different from England and Wales. It is, I am afraid, for that reason that, with pleasure, I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 8.—(MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. C. M. Woodhouse): I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 49, line 35, column 2, at the beginning to insert:
Throughout the Act for the words 'police authority' there shall be substituted the words 'compensation authority'".
If it is for the convenience of the House, we could take the Amendments in page 49, line 50, and page 53, column 3, at the same time. These are consequential.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Is that for the convenience of the House? So be it.

Mr. Woodhouse: These are technical Amendments which correct provisions in the Bill which inadvertently made a change in the responsibilities of county and county borough councils under the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886. The general effect of the Amendments is to restore the position under that Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: in page 49, line 50, column 2, at end insert:
In section 9, for the words from "means one of the districts" to "assigned to them" there shall be substituted the words "and the expression 'police fund' have the same meaning as in the Police Act 1964 and the expression 'compensation authority' means—

(a) in relation to a district for which the police authority is a committee of the council of a county or borough, that council;
(b) in relation to the metropolitan police district, the Receiver for that district; and
(c) in relation to any other district, the police authority".—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, Amendment No. 64, in page 50, line 16, column 2, to leave out from "borough" to the end of line 22 and to insert:
as if references in paragraphs (b) and (c) to the local authority included references to a police authority which is a committee of that council.
This is consequential upon Amendment No. 17. It was discussed with that Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, Amendment No. 65, in page 51, line 22, column 2, to leave out from "borough" to the end of line 33 and to insert:
any reference id paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act to the authority, and any references in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act to the local authority, shall be construed as including a reference to a police authority which is a committee of that council.
This is also consequential upon Amendment No. 17.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, Amendment No. 66, in page 52, line 42, at the end to insert:


15 Vict. c. cx.
The Tyne Improvement Act 1852.
In section 28, the words from "and every such Police Constable" to "respecting the Constables to be appointed in pursuance of that Act" and the words from "shall, upon the said River" to "made, and".


This should be taken with the next Amendment. Both were discussed with Amendment No. 28.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 52, line 50, at end insert:


23 &amp; 24 Vict. c 135.
The Metropolitan police Act 1860
The whole Act except as applied by the Special Constables Act 1923.


In page 53, column 3, leave out lines 41 to 43.—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 53, line 45, column 3, at the beginning to insert:
In section 3, in paragraph (iv) the words "lock-up houses" and "police stations", and paragraph (xiv).
This is in part a drafting Amendment and, in part, consequential upon Amendments Nos. 62 and 63.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 53, line 53, column 3, at end insert "Section 93(2)".—[Mr. Woodhouse.]

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move Amendment No. 71, in page 56, line 3, at the end to insert:


4 &amp; 5 Geo. 5. c. 44.
The Metropolitan Police (Employment in Scotland) Act 1914.
The whole Act except as applied by the Special Constables Act 1923.


This was discussed with Amendment No. 28.

Amendment agreed to.

Lady Tweedsmuir: I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 56, line 15, at the end to insert:


15 &amp; 16 Geo 6 and 1 Eliz. 2. c. 61.
The Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952.
Section 13.


This was discussed with the Amendment on page 38, line 9.

Amendment agreed to.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Woodhouse: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I move this Motion with some diffidence, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, who is unavoidably away from the House today, but also with confidence in the acknowledged merits of the Bill. I believe that the Bill will be looked upon as a landmark in the history of our police service. I am sure that everyone will readily agree that it is the most important police Measure which has come before the House in


modern times. Now that we have exhaustively scrutinised it in all its detail, this is an appropriate time to stand back and to look at it in its historical setting.
When we look back on the history of police legislation we find a series of seemingly unrelated Measures, each dealing with one or another aspect of the country's changing problems of law and order. Peel's historic Bill of 1829 established a police force only in the Metropolitan area. Six years later, in 1835, the Municipal Corporations Act established the borough forces, and in 1839 the county borough forces were authorised by the County Police Act. Next, the interest of the central Government for seeing that the many local police forces were efficient led in 1856 to the enactment of the County and Borough Police Act, which provided for the first time for the appointment of inspectors of constabulary.
Thus, over 100 years ago the basis of our modern police system was laid down; and it is a well-deserved tribute to our ancestors that neither the recent Royal Commission nor the Government, nor, I think I can confidently say, the Opposition, have seen any need to demolish this edifice in order to build on entirely fresh foundations. But the most striking change during the last 100 years has been a steady reduction in the number of separate local forces. This has been accompanied by an increasing recognition that the police service is concerned with national as well as local problems and must now be adapted to assume the character of a nation-wide service. After the historic Desborough Committee, the Police Act, 1919, established the principle of uniform conditions of service and pay. It also consolidated the influence of the Home Secretary in maintaining proper standards of efficiency throughout the country.
Then came the Police Act, 1946, which radically reduced the number of separate police forces and paved the way for further amalgamations in the interests of efficiency. That Act was skilfully piloted through the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and all hon. Members will join with me in paying warm tribute

to the wise and valuable contributions which he made to our debates in Committee upstairs. I regret that he is not in the House now to hear me pay this tribute to him.
In many respects, as the Royal Commission noted, in paragraph 41 of its Report, the law has failed to keep pace with the changes made in our police system in modern times. The Bill deals not with one nor even with a few of the many aspects of police administration which have been the subject of some of the earlier Measures to which I have referred. It is a comprehensive and compendious Measure to bring fully up to date the statutory framework within which the police service can work efficiently in the second half of the twentieth century. It is the first Bill of its kind to cover the whole constitutional structure of the police system, modernising as well as consolidating it.
My right hon. Friends and I are grateful for the constructive way in which the Bill has been examined during its progress through Parliament. As a result of Amendments made in Standing Committee and on Report, the Bill has been clarified and improved. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee upstairs contributed to this desirable result and I am glad to acknowledge their help. Perhaps I might, without being invidious, particularly pay tribute to the strong Yorkshire and Lancashire contingent on both sides of the Committee.
I want tonight to touch on only a few of the outstanding points which are in the minds of hon. Members who have devoted so much attention to the Bill. We are glad that the explanations which my right hon. Friend and I gave in Standing Committee have gone a long way towards dispelling the apprehension felt on behalf of police authorities when the Bill was introduced. My right hon. Friend sail on Second Reading that he did not believe that, in practice, the provisions of the Bill would make any significant difference to the working of police authorities or to their relationships with chief constables. I believe that this view has now come to be accepted by most people who have thoroughly studied the Bill.
Borough authorities will lose their present responsibility for the promotion and discipline of the less senior ranks,


but police authorities will keep their present functions virtually intact and, what is more, their functions will be clearly set out in a modern Statute which defines their main tasks and gives them precise powers whereby they can ensure that the chief constable is accountable to them. Police authorities—and I say this emphatically—have a continuing and valuable rôle to play in police administration. They represent the localities which the police forces serve, and it is our intention that they should be able to do so effectively.
The Government look forward to a continuing and co-operative partnership with police authorities on all police matters. In this connection, a matter on which there has probably been the most discussion, particularly in Committee, has been that of the handling of complaints against the police. That is not surprising, because it is one of the four matters into which the Royal Commission was specifically requested to inquire and because it contains by common consent one of the most difficult problems which the Commission and, subsequently, Parliament, has had to consider.
It is especially true because, as a result of the peculiar constitutional position of the police and the nature of their duties, it is not possible to draw any fruitful guidance from any other sphere of public duty. Cumulatively, the changes in this respect made by the Bill are far-reaching and there can be no question that there will henceforth be an efficacious means of investigating and handling complaints.
It is common ground that what we needed to try to do was to strike a balance between the equally desirable objects which are clearly set out in paragraph 433 of the Royal Commission's Report. That posed a dilemma, with which we are all familiar, and I will not weary the House by quoting that paragraph again. Clearly, there will always be room for debate about that balance. The Government consider that the right balance is struck by the Bill, although I should remind the House that we have tilted the balance in the direction of protecting the public rather further than the Royal Commission recommended.
One feature of the new arrangements, which has been of particular interest

to hon. Members, is the much increased opportunity for Questions to be put down by hon. Members asking for information about happenings in county and borough forces. I am confident that the new facilities for questioning will be exercised by the House with discretion in the traditional manner. Nothing would be worse for police efficiency and morale than the creation of the impression in the minds of the police that hon. Members will always be prepared to believe the worst of them and that allegations will be made without the backing of evidence.
As I have said, the police service will, under the Bill, continue to be based on local organisation. Some critics have suggested that the whole system of police organisation needs a fundamental revision. The Government do not agree with that view and I believe that the discussions we have had have shown that, in general, hon. Members do not agree with it either. This is the most unsuitable sphere of all for sweeping change and it is not the least of the debts we owe to the Royal Commission that its members recognised this so fully. It is appropriate, at this stage of our consideration of the Bill in this House, to pay a final tribute to the Royal Commission, which laid our groundwork for us. We are greatly indebted to its members for a great deal of what is now being embodied in legislation.
I would like to make my tribute to the Commission by quoting from the many admirable passages in its Report this characteristically balanced comment on the nature of the police problem which has never been far from our minds throughout our long deliberations. I am sure that this has been true of Members on both sides of the House and, earlier, of the Committee. The Royal Commission stated, in paragraph 24:
…it is to the public good that the police should be strong and effective in preserving law and order and preventing crime; but it is equally to the public good that police power should be controlled and confined so as not to interfere arbitrarily with personal freedom. The result is compromise. The police should be powerful but not oppressive; they should be efficient but not officious; they should form an impartial force in the body politic, and yet be subject to a degree of control by persons who are not required to be impartial and who are themselves liable to police supervision".


We, of course, agree with those words. We do not claim perfection but we do claim to have reached a result worthy of the traditions of the police service in this country; a result at least as good as human minds anywhere have so far been able to achieve.

6.29 p.m.

Miss Bacon: We all appreciate that the Home Secretary is not with us today because he is attending a happily family event in Brazil. Right hon. and hon. Members will not, however, have been surprised to learn that immediately the right hon. Gentleman arrived in Brazil, a Right-wing revolution broke out. We are much indebted to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the way in which he has moved the Third Reading of the Bill and for showing us the courtesy which he displayed throughout the whole of our proceedings in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shield (Mr. Ede) was not with us this evening for the Third Reading of the Bill, on which he played such a notable part in Committee. It so happens that this evening some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are honouring my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields at a dinner downstairs to mark his long and distinguished membership of the House of Commons.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Miss Bacon: To those of us who served in the Standing Committee on the Bill it seems a long time since its Second Reading on 26th November. At the 18 sittings of the Committee which we had, we inevitably discussed the most detailed proposals in the Bill. Although they were extremely detailed, they were important points. In discussing some of those details, it is sometimes easy to forget the main purpose of a Bill, and Third Reading affords us an opportunity to looking again at the Bill as a whole.
The Bill goes from here today a very much better Measure than it was in November. The persuasive powers of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends in moving Amendments in Committee so impressed the Home Secretary that many of those Amendments have now been incorporated on Report.
One of those improvements is that members of police forces will have all the powers and privileges of a constable in every area in England and Wales. We believe that this is important and much better that the original suggestion that they should have powers only in neighbouring areas. If, for any reason, an inquiry is ordered by the Home Secretary, and it has to be held in private, the conclusions and findings must be made public. We heard that this did not quite meet all the demands of my hon. Friends from Scotland and perhaps, when we accepted this proposal from the Home Secretary, it was considered that half a loaf was better than no bread. This is, however, of great importance.
Members of local authorities who are not members of the police authority will now have the right to ask questions concerning police matters in the full council. The practice has varied in different parts of the country. This will be a great change particularly in counties, where hitherto the police committee has not even been a committee of the council.
Two other improvements also affect the police and the chief constables. Arbitration provisions for the police are written into the Bill and the position of chief constables who are affected by amalgamations or local government re-organisation has been safeguarded. We also have an improvement that where police areas are amalgamated, there are provisions for the continued democratic control of these forces. These are all improvements to which both sides contributed in Committee and on Report.
There are one or two features of the Bill about which we are still doubtful. I do not want to go into them at length, because my speech will be short, but I should like once more to register our disappointment that the Bill still contains pro visions for a number of magistrates to be appointed to police authorities. This is not regarded with great favour, particularly in the boroughs As to complaints against the police, which are an important matter, the Bill contains many welcome improvements on the existing position. As it stands, however, there will still be dissatisfaction on the part of members of the public because there is at no


stage any recommendation for an independent person to be present at disciplinary inquiries or investigations. Nevertheless, the position in the Bill is much better than formerly and we shall watch the operation of this new procedure with great interest.
On the whole, this is a good Bill. It is important in that it repeals many Acts and rewrites the whole of our police structure and defines, in a way never done before, the respective powers of the Home Secretary, the police authorities and the chief constable. It is true that the emphasis is being changed a little in the respective powers of the local authorities and the Home Secretary although, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, some of the fears that the watch committees entertained at the beginning have been lessened as the Bill has proceeded through its various stages.
The Home Secretary has more powers than before and I welcome his new powers. He has power to call for reports from chief constables. It is important that Members of Parliament who represent areas outside the Metropolitan area will at last be able to question the Home Secretary in Parliament about matters connected with the policing of their authorities. This we welcome. It means also that we shall be able to write to the Home Secretary about police matters and not have the usual reply, which we have had hitherto, that he has no power to call for reports from chief constables. We shall, however, watch carefully to see how the Home Secretary uses these new powers.
We welcome very much the fact that we have the right to question the Home Secretary, but it is not only the questions that we ask that are important: it is also the answers which we receive. We hope that we shall receive full answers to our questions and that we shall not be put off by being told that it is not in the public interest to disclose certain information.
It can at least be said that when a Question is asked in Parliament it is almost impossible for any local matter to be covered up because of the great Press publicity which it attracts. In addition, the fact that we shall be able to ask Questions of the Home Secretary here will mean that chief constables and

police will be covered. I understand that very often chief constables and police constables would have welcomed an answer being given to questions which, perhaps, could not be asked in the House of Commons because it was against the law to do so.
The Bill gives great powers and responsibility to chief constables. Its whole success depends upon the calibre, character and personality of the chief constables. They bear a great burden and have great powers and responsibilities. On Second Reading, I said something which caused eyebrows to be raised when I remarked that in the very nature of those responsibilities chief constables were among the people in the community who could not, perhaps, lead the same social life as many other citizens.
I do not see why eyebrows should have been raised when I said that, because I believe it to be true. To use a phrase which has become well known in the last few weeks, a chief constable must not sit in an ivory tower, but must always be in a position to stand back and survey the scene impartially.
As I have said, we have been dealing with a great many details, but we have to remember the chief purpose of the Bill. It contains a great deal of machinery, but we want it to provide us with an adequate and well-trained police force to combat crime, and reduce crime. There is a close connection between deterrence and detection of crime; when the detection rate is high, crime is low, and when the detection rate is low crime is on the increase. We want a police force in whose members the public have confidence and regard as their friends. I have noticed with very great interest some of the experiments being carried out, with policemen going to the schools, and talking to children, and becoming friendly with them. It is very important that the children of today should grow up thinking of the policeman as their friend, and not as an enemy.
We need many more recruits to the police force, and we want them to stay in the force. In spite of increases in pay, we are still short of an adequate force, and many constables leave after a very short period of service. That shows that not only is pay important,


but conditions are very important. The work involves irregular hours. The policeman is subject to increased criticism. Frustrations are sometimes worked off on the police and the police themselves find that they are, in turn, frustrated. There are a great many clerical and traffic duties that ought to be done by people other than trained members of a police force.
During the last few months there has been some criticism of the police, but we must remember that for every occurrence such as we had in Sheffield there are hundreds of acts of heroism by members of the police force. During the Second Reading debate I pointed out that the Royal Commission did not mention policewomen; and that we ought to pay a tribute to the very great work they had been doing. We have since seen an act of remarkable heroism by a policewoman—Margaret Clelland, who went on a roof to rescue a baby. That probably brought home to us far more than anything else could the value and great heroism not only of our policemen, but of our policewomen. In wishing the Bill well, we on this side realise the great debt we owe to the police, and pay a very great tribute to the work of our police authorities.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I, too, welcome the Bill. It is the most important police Bill that has ever come before Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is to be congratulated on the way in which the Bill has been carried through all its stages, with the very great help and enormous ability and understanding of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary.
There was never a time in our history when police and public needed each other's help more than they do today, and I like to think that Parliament has a part to play in acting as a bridge between police and public. It is, of course, a bridge that is greatly strengthened by the increased Parliamentary opportunities that this Measure provides.
If I may, I should like to say how reassuring I found the welcome given by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds.

South-East (Miss Bacon) to the complaints procedure as it has emerged from the Committee. Although there was disagreement on whether or not magistrates should be on the police authorities, I think that she and all hon. Members on both sides who had doubts will feel that it is a matter that should be given a fair trial and, perhaps, a fairly long trial. After all, Sir Robert Peel's legislation was given a run of well over 100 years, and this idea of having one-third magistrates on police authorities is something of which we shall not see the results very quickly.
No doubt, in different parts of the country the presence of one-third magistrates where before, on watch committees at any rate, there were only local councillors, will have varying results in terms of the relationships that are established; and I think that we need to give this procedure a run of a good many years before we can really take stock of the position.
I hope that it will not be considered amiss if I say that sometimes when I was arguing in favour of magistrates being on police authorities in future my remarks were misinterpreted as being somewhat critical of the existing watch committees. I have no wish to be critical of watch committees, because I realise what fine work they have done in the past, but I was very anxious that what we had seen of the failure of a very small minority of watch committees should not be repeated in the years to come. That is why I felt that a leavening of magistrates could do nothing but good. We had, of course, the example—I felt it to be a good example—of the standing joint committees to guide us.
I must mention a point of detail because it affects my constituency. The special provisions in Clause 25 apply to the Cities of Cambridge and Peterborough. The House will recollect that the City of Peterborough—and, indeed, the Soke of Peterborough and the County of Huntingdon—will form one county in future, and will, no doubt, have one police authority. The City and County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely will form another county, and will no doubt have one police authority. I hope that before any final decision as to the exact composition of the police authorities for those areas is made, the


hon. Members representing the constituencies in those areas will be consulted. I know that we have no statutory right of consultation, but as Parliament is now to be seized to a greater extent in the future than it has been in the past of police matters, I think it desirable that those hon. Members should be informally consulted by the Home Secretary of the day.
We are fortunate in this House to have had an opportunity to play a part in advancing police affairs by supporting this important Measure.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Brian O'Malley: The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) has just expressed the hope that the arrangement by which one-third of the membership of watch committees and police authorities will be magistrates will be given a long run. We on this side regarded it as a point of constitutional principle. We spoke strongly against the arrangement but, since that decision has been taken, I, too, hope that the procedure will be given a good long run so that we can see from experience just what happens.
In the history of the police force one often sees the need for something involving a constitutional principle to be given a long run. I am reminded of the turmoil that was created in many areas when it was suggested that forces on the lines of our modern police forces should be established. When the possibility of creating such a police force in the Sheffield area was discussed after the town became a borough in 1843, there was a rush of pamphleteers, who talked about threats to democracy and of the evils that would befall the population when the armed bludgeon men came along. It was a number of years before public opinion veered as the result of the experience gained from having that kind of police force.
Although one might disagree with it on points of detail, it seems to me that this is an extremely important and significant Measure. One of the major things that it does is to codify the existing law on the subject. Anyone who did any work before the Committee stage, or had previous experience, knew that to look

up the existing police law, which had ramifications in all kinds of local improvement Acts from the end of the eighteenth century, was an extremely difficult job. The Bill sweeps away much of the old legislation and puts in a handy and convenient form the law relating to the police forces.
The Bill arose largely as a result of the creation of a Royal Commission because it was widely thought that public confidence in the police force was not at the degree which it should be. I believe that the Bill will do something in the long run to improve public confidence in the police and therefore I would welcome it for that alone. I regard the Bill as useful and significant also because the powers of the central Government are in some ways increased usefully. It is important that Members of Parliament should be able to ask Questions of the Home Secretary in the House of Commons and that the right hon. Gentleman should have the power to call for reports from chief constables. I believe that this situation which has been created by the Bill will alone do a great deal to instil in the public mind a sense of confidence in the local police force.
I have raised the question of areas of administration in more detail already but it is important and worth while to raise it again. I would hope that whenever the size of areas of administration is being considered by Home Secretaries of the day they will be extremely reluctant to create areas which do not coincide with the areas of the existing multi-purpose authorities. We have decided in the Bill that police forces generally, apart from co-operation and co-ordination, should be based on the local government areas which one assumes will be created in the next few years as the Boundaries Commission reports.
There is a danger in the Bill that single-purpose joint boards will be set up. If we do this we shall tend to create the kind of administrative chaos that existed at the end of the last century when ad hoc single authorities of this kind were set up. I hope that in future, when questions of amalgamations are considered and boundaries and areas of


police forces are dealt with, it will be only as a last resort that single-purpose police authorities will be set up under joint boards because I believe that there are serious constitutional and practical objections to that kind of local government administration.
We examined this important and significant Bill in considerable detail in Committee and I should like to thank the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Home Secretary for the kindness shown to me in the first Standing Committee of the House that I have attended. I was listened to with courtesy and was given competent answers. I enjoyed my experience in the Standing Committee and I believe that the long-term result of the Bill will be to improve continually the relations between the police and the public.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: Before I strike a note which dissents a little from the consensus of opinion expressed on Third Reading I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friends the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and also the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) for the way they dealt with this issue in Committee with great thoroughness and courtesy. So thorough were they that I did not realise that we had only 18 sittings. I thought that it was more like 20 or 21. This is some indication of the detail and care with which these matters were pursued.
This is a valuable Bill. Some of the changes it makes will be of considerable use to the public and the police but I must tell the House that I feel that it is a Bill of lost opportunity. I fear that the Home Secretary may well have taken responsibility without authority. We shall have to wait a while before we see whether this is true or not, but the more I think about this subject and the more contact I have with the police the more I am satisfied that a future Government will have to create a national police force.
There are only two real reasons against a national police force. One is the A.M.C. and the other the C.C.A. I do not regard either of these reasons as adequate and I feel certain that the time is not far removed when, for the purposes of dealing with crime, with traffic and morale, we must have a national police force.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss that on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Shepherd: I was proposing to go only that far and to end my extremely brief remarks by saying that my present anxiety, which I am sure must be the anxiety of everyone who has the interest of the police at heart, is the awful gap in the supply of men of the highest level which now faces the police. They are now going out of the police force month after month and it seems to me that we have not the material to replace them. The consequence of this, which I urge upon my right hon. Friends, is that we must have as few police authorities as possible under the Bill.
At the present level of intake we cannot provide large numbers of men to exercise an authority almost without equal in the country. I hope, therefore, that under the new provisions the Home Office will do all it can to see that the quality of intake is improved so that we can provide what I fear we cannot provide at the moment, an adequate supply of men able to take on the almost unique responsibility which a chief constable exercises.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said that he was a new Member of Parliament. I am even newer. When I first joined the Standing Committee on this Bill, in my early days in the House, I was busy reading biographies of illustrious former Members of Parliament. As a Welshman, albeit representing a Yorkshire constituency, I learned from the biography of David Lloyd George that when he first came to the House, in the early 1890's, he went to a Standing Committee and afterwards vowed that he would never do so again. He stuck to his vow.
I think that he was wrong to do so, because I found myself on the Standing Committee at a time when I was a little bemused as to what Parliament was


really about and I think that in that Committee I found Parliament at its best as we discussed this very long and difficult Bill.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), I think it right that the Bill should be given general approval after its passage through its various stages, but, representing a county borough, I still think that it is a matter of regret that the police committees in the boroughs will have to admit members of the judiciary, members of the bench, on to the police committees. With the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton) I hope that it will be given a fair trial, because it would be possible to some degree when elections take place to sidetrack what is the intention of the relevant Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East has given a word of praise to the police. I should like to add my word to that, and to say just one other thing. There is a tendency to concentrate on the problem of the police in the realm of complaints, so I would just briefly say that there is a real problem, too, in the field of recruitment. That will not be covered just by putting up the pay of policemen. In these days, when the Sunday newspapers' back pages are covered with all sorts of advertisements attracting the young into jobs which offer not only large salaries, but also good opportunities, it will be increasingly difficult for the police to recruit young men and also young women.
I therefore hope that great attention is being given to this, particularly to attract young men and young women who can hope to receive out of the police service educational advantage in training, such as that offered by the National Coal Board, and offered also by the oil companies and other great commercial firms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East mentioned that it was a coincidence that when the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary arrived in Brazil, or shortly afterwards, there was a Right-wing revolution. May I say that I hope the opportunity will be taken to deny the rumour which is going

around that he is, in fact, not visiting Brazil, but is in exile for having written three unsigned articles in The Times.

7.2 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: In winding up this debate on Third Reading I would say only a very few words. We have, I think—and we can pride ourselves upon it—very carefully examined the provisions of this extremely important Bill. We started with a great advantage in that we had to assist us a very valuable Report from the Royal Commission, and I am very glad to say it in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who is the only hon. Member in the House at the moment who was a member of that Commission. So we started with a great advantage in addressing ourselves to the extremely difficult task of trying to consider the position of the police force in relation to the community.
The Bill which has emerged as the result of our deliberations makes very important changes. It does, I think, get about right the respective sphere of local and central administration of the police force. That may or may not turn out, with experience, to be mistaken on my part. We shall have to see how the responsibility which the Secretary of State has assumed under the terms of the Bill, in fact, functions, whether it is too limited or whether it is not. If it should be too limited, perhaps changes will seem to be necessary in the course of years. A number of other changes of great importance which have been reconsidered in the course of this debate have been made. It would not serve any useful purpose for me again to refer to them in any detail.
I sometimes think, when, in this rapidly changing world, we are trying to measure the pace of advance of what we sometimes call backward nations—and I say this in the presence of the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon)—that we are apt to say and to think to ourselves; quite rightly, that backward nations advance as and when, and in proportion to the pace at which, they convert the women in their communities from inferiors to men to their complete and absolute equals. I hope


that that is not irrelevant, but the attempted relevance of it is this, that by a not wholly diverse process of reasoning I think that we can say to ourselves that the health and strength and soundness of heart of a great modern democracy can also be measured by seeing what sort of a police force it has evolved.
We are a community, I suppose, of 50 million people who are as independent-minded as any people in the world; we are extremely jealous for the preservation of what is loosely included in the phrase "civil rights". The pushing of people around is not a popular practice in this country. It is a great tribute to our police force that it has succeeded in winning and maintaining the confidence of a public of that sort. In some countries in the world, if there are sinister rumours as to what the police in those countries are doing, the public conscience in those countries may remain comparatively quiescent and not be disturbed by the sort of things that it is said their police are doing.
It is very different in this country. Any excess or abuse of power on the part of the police in this country, rare as I believe it to be, provokes an immediate reaction, and, as in the case of any great force from whom the highest standards are expected, any backsliding by individual members of the force casts a baleful light upon the rectitude, and solid and devoted and honest endeavour of the other members of that force. It is hard that it should be so for them, but it is also a measure of the respect in which they are held that it should be so. If anything goes wrong, the public is acutely conscious of it.
If I would have one criticism of the Bill it is that which has been voiced on a number of occasions during the course of our debates upon it, that its provisions are not so formulated as to include Measures necessary entirely to reassure the public on all occasions. I entirely agree that the procedure for the investigation of complaints is very greatly improved. I believe that it will work well, and I greatly hope that it does. The one regret I would feel is that the public are in no sense brought into the investigations or the hearings

of any incident arising out of an investigation. I do not think that that in any sense involves that investigations or hearings are not or will not be properly conducted, but I think that it is a pity, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) said, that we did not take the opportunity to examine more closely some of the suggestions made to enable the public to be made certain that when there is a matter of complaint it is, in fact, properly dealt with, as, I believe, it is now.
The Bill makes great changes: complaints have to be recorded; they have to be investigated; if there is any suggestion of a criminal offence disclosed when the investigating officer reports the Director of Public Prosecutions is put in charge of it; local inquiries can be held; a chief constable, upon whose personality and character, as my hon. Friend said, so much depends, can, should it be unfortunately necessary in an individual case, be required to retire by the police authority at the request of the Home Secretary. All these are great advances, and I think that they will work out well in the future, so it is, as I say, with some regret that I feel that there is still this slight lacuna in the Bill.
I would simply say this, in conclusion. I believe that we may say that we have done our work well. As the hon. Member for Cheadle very kindly paid tribute to some hon. Members on my side of the House I think that tribute should go to all those who took part in shaping the Bill. I feel that our work upon it will inure to the good of the community in the years to come.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Woodhouse: May 1, very briefly, address the House in reply to the debate? I think that it would be churlish at this stage to dwell on disagreements that have arisen between us. I shall, therefore, not comment on the supposed reasons for the Home Secretary's going to Brazil, although I would remind the House that the revolution started before he left this country and ended as soon as he arrived there; nor shall I dwell on the motives that may have taken the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to the vaults of the Houses of Parliament this afternoon.
I would rather dwell on matters on which we have found common agreement. With my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Renton), the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), and the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon), I entirely agree that it is desirable that the new arrangement for police authorities should be given a fair trial. I would not, at this stage, reopen the argument with the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) on complaints about the police, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) about a national police force, but I would most heartily agree with the hon. Lady in her remarks about the importance of educating children, of promoting recruitment in the police, and of enhancing the status of the policewomen to whom she very eloquently and properly paid tribute.
On local matters arising, I shall gladly take note of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire said about procedure in amalgamations, and the similar points raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham about the size of the police areas to be achieved. It would, perhaps, be insulting to refer to Scotland as a local matter, but I think that it is right to add a few words on the subject of the debates that took place in the Scottish Standing Committee, which took five full Committee days, and which gave great care and attention to the Bill, as well as on the debate this evening.
As Scottish Members well know, the framework of the 1956 Act is basically unchanged, although it will be necessary before long to consolidate it. If I had to define the fundamental purpose of the Bill in one word—and this is in application to both England and Wales and Scotland—I think that word would be "accountability", and I mean accountability at all levels from Parliament to the local authorities and the police authorities.
The Royal Commission commented that a chief constable is accountable to no one and subject to no one's orders, and argued that it was difficult to justify such a situation. I do not think that anyone has claimed that the system has

worked badly in the past. Although there have been a few unhappy exceptions, it is remarkable how few those have been. However, whether it worked well or badly, it was clearly impossible to perpetuate such a situation once public attention had been drawn to it by the Royal Commission.
The Bill has found what we believe to be an acceptable solution. It is a Bill with which those of us who have been associated, in however subsidiary a role, will, I think, always remember, and by which we shall not be ashamed to be remembered.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CONTINENTAL SHELF BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Nothing in this Act shall be taken to restrict the powers of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws; and any laws made by that Parliament with respect to any matter with respect to which it has that power shall have effect notwithstanding anything in this Act.—[Mr. Peyton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause is in standard form and simply ensures that nothing in the Bill impinges upon the powers of the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITA- TION OF CONTINENTAL SHELF.)

The Minister of Power (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
(4) Model clauses prescribed under section 6 of the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 as applied by the preceding subsection shall include provision for the safety, health and


welfare of persons employed on operations undertaken under the authority of any licence granted under that Act as so applied.
During the Committee stage hon. Members on both sides expressed the hope that provision would be made in the Bill for the health, safety and welfare of the workers employed on the installations offshore.
I undertook to see if a suitable subsection could be drafted, and I submit to the House a subsection which goes a little further than that requested by hon. Members by including the word "welfare" in addition to the words "safety and health".

Mr. Norman Pentland: We on this side of the House welcome the right hon. Gentleman's decision to include this provision in the regulations in the Bill. We argued this most forcibly, both on Second Reading and in Committee, and therefore it would not be proper for me at this stage to cover those arguments again. We were anxious about the employees who would have to work on the installations on the continental shelf.
This will be a very important provision. It concerns not only the protection of the workers involved, but also removes a good deal of uncertainty for the employer.
It may be that as time goes by we shall have experience of the hazards that may occur. Many duties will have to be performed on these installations on the continental shelf, and they may come before us most vividly after we have had experience of their operation. We may then have to come back to Parliament to amend the Bill or to seek to bring in new regulations covering this aspect of the safety, health and welfare of the workers.
I hope that the House will accept the Amendment, because I feel that the right hon. Gentleman has listened very carefully to us and has an understanding of this matter. He has at least attempted to alleviate and eliminate the anxieties which we felt in regard to the safety, health and welfare of the workers.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member

for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland). If the prospecting companies had by this time discovered deposits of natural gas or oil and were proceeding to their exploitation, it is possible that we should want to go a little further than we are going in providing for the safety, health and welfare of the workers. I agree with my hon. Friend that if and when we strike is rich in the North Sea it is exceedingly likely that we shall want to deal with this matter more fully in another piece of legislation.
I was surprised when the right hon. Gentleman said that he had gone a little further in the Amendment than he had been asked to do when we discussed the matter in Committee. I think he is in error. I quickly turned over the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when my hon. Friend moved the new Clause that was resisted, some of us kept the discussion going a little while, and after the right hon. Gentleman had made his speech resisting our proposal, I made one which I concluded with the words:
Let him agree to put in words on Report to ensure that the power given to him under the appropriate Section of the Petroleum (Production) Act of 1934 includes the power to draft a model Clause dealing with the safety, health and welfare of the people employed on these installations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Stand Committee A, 4th March, 1964; c. 163.]
I had thought that the right hon. Gentleman had looked very closely at those words when drafting his Amendment, because what I then asked for is precisely what he has been able to do. In fact, immediately I sat down after uttering those words, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had been convinced and would do his best to put an appropriate form of words into the Bill on Report Like my hon. Friend, I am delighted that he has been successful.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peyton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, at the end to insert:
(5) The Minister of Power shall for each financial year prepare and lay before Parliament a report stating—

(a) the sciences under the said Act of 1934 granted in that year in respect of areas beyond low-water mark and the persons to whom and the areas in respect of which they were granted, and the like information as respects such licences held at the end of that year;


(b) the total amount of natural gas and of other petroleum gotten in that year in pursuance of licences held in respect of such areas; and
(c) the method used for arriving at the amounts payable by way of consideration for such licences.


During the Committee stage my right hon. Friend accepted in principle a demand which, I think, was voiced from both sides, for some form of annual report. I very much hope that the Amendment meets the demand. Despite what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) said about the last Amendment, once again I express the hope that this Amendment goes a little further than we were asked to go. Not only is a report of the preceding financial year provided for, but so is a statement of the up-to-date position giving the details of all licences issued up to the end of the preceding financial year.
Also, the report will be required to state how much oil and gas has been produced during that year, and it is also stipulated that the financial terms should be set out in the report. It is intended that the financial terms shall be standard and common to all licences which have been issued at the same time. Other terms will be set out in the regulations.
It is, therefore, the Government's view that it would be unnecessary to repeat them in the annual report.

Mr. Pentland: I welcome the Minister's decision to recommend that these regulations should be embodied in the Bill. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides welcome the Amendment, although in Committee the Opposition moved an Amendment that the twelve-monthly report should come before Parliament so that we might have full understanding of the powers vested in the Minister and how he used them. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment will have the full support of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(PROTECTION OF INSTALLA- TIONS IN DESIGNATED AREAS.)

Mr. Peyton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, at the end to insert
unless he proves that the prohibition imposed by the order was not, and would not on reasonable inquiry have become, known to the master".

Continuing our happy mood of harmony, I move this Amendment in not only the hope but the belief that it will meet the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) in Committee.

Sir Frank Soskice: I thank the Minister for seeking to insert these words, which entirely meet the point I raised.
However, there is one very slight point of drafting at which I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would look with his advisers. I suppose it could not be argued that the condition that the accused person should say that the prohibition could not reasonably have been known to him applies only when he is charged on indictment but not when he is charged on summary conviction. In other words, it would be a pity—I am sure that the Minister does not mean it—that he should be able to say by way of a defence when charged on indictment and liable to a year's imprisonment that he did not know of the prohibition and could not reasonably have known it but that he should not be able to say that when charged on summary conviction and liable only to a lesser penalty.
I should have thought that as a matter of drafting those words might have meant that, but perhaps they do not.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I will certainly look into the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAW.)

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, at the end to insert:
(3) It shall be the duty of the Minister to attach to any licence granted under section 1 of this Act a direction specifying, in accordance with any Order in Council made under this section, the law of what part of the United Kingdom shall apply and the part of the United Kingdom in which the courts have jurisdiction in respect of any act or omission referred to in the foregoing provisions of this section.
It is clear from our earlier discussions on the Bill that in the opinion of the Minister and his advisers subsection (1) of Clause 3 applies to the criminal law and subsection (2) to the civil law. Subsection (2) reads:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the determination, in


accordance with the law in force in such part of the United Kingdom as may be specified in the Order, of questions arising out of acts or omissions taking place in a designated area, or in any part of such an area…
On a great many occasions when we were discussing both subsection (1) and subsection (2) the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Government wished to make the Clause as clear as human ingenuity could make it. There was a good deal of discussion, particularly on subsection (2), arising out of the proposition that in applying the civil law to a designated area or any part of a designated area by an Order in Council the Government would, perhaps by accident, be applying also a part of the criminal law because they would apply particular Acts, and in particular provision is made in this Bill in the Clause dealing with radioactive substances for the application of a civil law which takes with it a considerable and important part of the criminal law.
I wondered whether in future the courts would construe subsection (1) as applying to the criminal law and subsection (2) as applying exclusively to the civil law. I found at the end of the day, having listened to all the discussion on both subsections, that a good part of our criminal law would be called into play by the application of subsection (2). All of us in Committee thought it would be ridiculous if there were criminal proceedings in one part of the United Kingdom, for example in Scotland, arising out of an incident on an installation in the North Sea, and after criminal proceedings had taken place in a Scottish court, we found that an Order in Council had been made attaching the civil law of England not Scotland to the designated area or the part of the designated area, and arising out of the same incident in respect of which criminal proceedings had been taken, civil proceedings were then embarked upon, those civil proceedings having to take place in an English court.
7.30 p.m.
The Committee thought this ridiculous, and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary agreed. We heard many undertakings by the Government to look at this again before the Report stage. Before withdrawing an Amendment to leave out subsection (2), which

I moved for purposes of discussion, I said that if the Government did not find it possible to move an appropriate Amendment to clarify the position we would endeavour to do so, and that is what we have done. We seek to make it the
…duty of the Minister to attach to any licence granted under section 1 of this Act a direction specifying, in accordance with any Order in Council made under this section, the law of what part of the United Kingdom shall apply and the part of the United Kingdom in which the courts have jurisdiction in respect of any act of omission referred to in the foregoing provisions of this section.
This Amendment would tie together the provisions of subsections (1) and (2), concerning both criminal and civil law, in ensuring that a person granted a licence was informed as to which part of the United Kingdom the installation would be legally subject to.
The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), who is associated with a company which has been drilling in the North Sea for many years, said in Committee that he had always assumed that the law that would apply in respect of installations far out at sea would be the law applicable in the port from which the servicing was carried out That seems a sensible suggestion. At present, however, the Bill does not say that this is the law that will apply. I hope that if the Minister accepts the. Amendment he will, when granting a licence, attach to it the law of that part of the United Kingdom in which the servicing port is situated. All we have in mind is that licensees and all others concerned should know from the outset which law will apply to an installation erected at sea under a licence issued under the Bill. Some Amendment is certainly required, and I hope that our words will be acceptable to the Government.
If we do not put this matter right now, perhaps we shall not be able to do so, for this Bill began in another place and I suspect that in view of all the Amendments we have made that House will probably feel that it has seen enough of the Bill and will be content to accept the situation. If their Lordships do not accept the Amendments, then I suppose that that will be an end to the matter. I hope this Amendment commends itself to the Minister. If it does not, I


fear that the Bill will be unsatisfactory in that civil and criminal proceedings may apply to the same types of case.

Mr. Peyton: I am sorry that it should fall to me slightly to diminish the atmosphere of harmony which has prevailed so far, but I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment. I hope, however, that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) will find some satisfaction in some of my remarks.
I understand that the Amendment, because it would apply to that part of the law which will, so to speak, be handled by Order in Council, would apply only to the civil law, since the criminal law is handled almost completely by Clause 3(1). I am convinced that the Amendment would not achieve its purpose. First, the licence will be a contractual document which will bind only the parties to that contract and, secondly, the licence will be powerless in itself to confer jurisdiction upon the courts of law.
The Order in Council will cover the whole of a designated area. Where the area concerned is off the coasts of the two countries then the Order itself will specify a line more or less continuing the boundary between the two countries, north of which Scottish law will apply, with the case being heard in Scottish courts, and south of which English law will apply, with English courts having jurisdiction.
It is intended as a matter of administrative convenience that, where an application covers an area containing such a line, two licences will be issued. The intention is to make it clear that no single licence overlaps the boundary line, which will be specified in the Order. I hope that I have made myself clear.
The hon. Member recalled that we said we would do all that human ingenuity could manage to make the purpose of the Clause clear. After the most careful consideration of everything said by him and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) in Committee, we have come to the conclusion that human ingenuity in this case has shot its bolt and done its best. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted in Committee, this is not an easy matter, and in dealing with it now for the second time I am con-

siderably comforted by the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, whom I regard on this occasion as defence in depth. My right hon. and learned Friend's presence makes me rather more comfortable in facing the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, although I appreciate very much the courtesy with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made this point in Committee.
The effect of Clause 3(1) is that a person whose conduct on an installation would have been a criminal offence had it taken place in the United Kingdom will, under Clause 11(1), be liable to prosecution in any place in the United Kingdom. This is a direct result of the Bill without the intervention of an Order in Council. The fact that a person may thus be exposed to criminal proceedings in two countries is not of itself novel. This is the position under the Merchant Shipping Acts, and careful examination of the experience under those Acts has not led the Government to believe that there is any need to have second thoughts about what we are doing here.
The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to the example, mentioned in Committee, of a man faced with criminal proceedings in Scotland and a civil action in England arising out of the same circumstances. It was asked whether this would not be ridiculous. However, this is quite a frequent occurrence. For example, a motorist crossing the frontier between Scotland and England might well be involved in an accident which would result in criminal proceedings at the place where the accident occurred, say Scotland, and a civil action afterwards in a court south of the border where it would be settled according to English law.
On second thoughts I am not as worried as when the hon. Member first confronted me with this example. It is quite unnecessary for me to remind the House that when a person has once been acquitted or convicted in respect of one act, he cannot be put in jeopardy a second time, no matter where the former proceedings took place, provided that he was tried and the case setttled by a court of competent jurisdiction.
It is true that subsection (2) is not confined expressly to the civil law, but I


must emphasise that it is the Government's view, and we are quite satisfied that this is the case, that the criminal law is dealt with satisfactorily and adequately by subsection (1). Therefore, an Order in Council made under subsection (2) could neither affect nor override what had already been done perfectly satisfactorily in subsection (1). It is, therefore, generally true that subsection (2) is not concerned with criminal offences.
I wish that I could leave it there, but there is a slight complication, because under Clauses 6 and 7 Orders in Council may be used to apply both the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, and the Radioactive Substances Act, 1960. Both those Acts create offences and I have to concede that to that extent subsection (2) can be said to be concerned with offences; but I am obliged to say that it is open to argument whether Clauses 6 and 7 are strictly necessary. Clause 6, in particular, was included very much at the request of the Post Office, which has considerable and justifiable anxieties about this difficult problem.
I conclude by saying that the right hon. and learned Member for Newport expressed great anxiety about offences under the Licensing Acts. I hope that I am in a position to set those anxieties at rest. I am advised that nothing in the Bill will have the effect of extending to the Continental Shelf a licensing district. Licensing districts will remain permanently anchored to the earth land of the United Kingdom. I am, therefore, able to assure him that on his first visit to the Continental Shelf he will not be able to commit the offence which he has in contemplation, because it will not be possible.
I am unable to say what arrangements will be made for the supply of liquor on the Continental Shelf, but it appears from such examination as I have been able to make that there will be no closing time.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9.—(USE AND SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS.)

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, after "gas", to insert "in Great Britain".
The Clause as drafted requires a licensee to seek the Minister's consent before using any natural gas for whatever purpose it is required. However, such purpose might include use on the licensee's own installation, such as for lighting drilling platforms or running generators in connection with the power supply of the installation itself. This is an unnecessary restriction in such a case and the Amendment is designed to permit the marginal use of natural gas by the licensee without his first seeking the Minister's consent.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I thought that the Parliamentary draftsmen had surpassed themselves with their ingenuity, because I thought that the Amendment was to allow the licensee to export, but all that is to be available, apparently, is the use of natural gas on the installations themselves. From Clause 9 alone it would appear that the licensee would have the right to export gas, but I observe in Committee that the Parliamentary Secretary said:
I can give him this short answer, that our present intention is that a licensee shall be required to import into this country either by ship or pipeline whatever products may be found."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 12th February, 1964; c. 50.]
I give the Clause a rather wider interpretation than that given to it by my hon. Friend. As I understand it, there would be nothing to deter the licensee from exporting the natural gas, which would be his product, except that he would be in breach of contract, because he would have signed the terms of the licence and thus agreed to observe the provisions of Sections 2 and 6 of the Petroleum Production Act, 1934. The stipulations would make it necessary for him to comply with rather stringent terms, these being that he must bring in the natural gas within the jurisdiction and so forth.
This is putting an enormous amount of power in the hands of the Executive which is not apparent from the first reading of Clause 9. However, the Clause will say:
The holder of the licence shall not without the consent of the Minister of Power use the gas in Great Britain and no person shall without that consent supply the gas to any other person at premises in Great Britain.
The implication is that he might be entitled to utilise it elsewhere. I would


have thought that limited interpretation was a little against the interests of the licensees who own the oil and the natural gas which is captive and which does not and cannot vest in the Crown as it is beyond the jurisdiction. This is correctly termed by the Convention.
It also disregards the position of the miners in this country, because if my right hon. Friend lays down certain conditions and it is later discovered that there is an ample supply of natural gas, my right hon. Friend would be obliged to provide for it to be bought internally and he would also have to arrange for a complete displacement of the other high-cost fuels available on the market. However, it would be invidious for the industry if licensees were not in a position to export the natural gas and there would have to be a protection for the coal industry by raising substantially the price of gas per therm to domestic and commercial users.
The whole purpose of Clause 9, which is a redraft of Section 52 of the Gas Act, 1948, is to preserve the monopoly of the gas industry. In this case it is taken a little far. In Committee, I made a recommendation to my right hon. Friend that while I was prepared to see a working monopoly in the terms of domestic gas, when it came to considering this in a broader context of being able to use the resources of the Shelf to the advantage of all concerned, then the licensee should be in a position to export what surplus he has in mind and, prima facie, from a reading of the words which have been put in, it would appear that that is so.
I do not know what teeth are being gnashed in the committee which is drafting the regulations on this matter, but I imagine that a few shots are being fired from either side as to what the actual terms are to be. I wonder whether we could have further clarification from the Minister about what will be the export position, otherwise it can lead the coal industry, general industry, and the rest of the economy into a difficult state.

Sir F. Soskice: I feel in some doubt about the position under Clause 9 with regard to exports. We have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet), who has given close study to this Bill and obviously

has great knowledge of it. Having heard his views on the Minister's Amendment, and having as best I can restudied that Clause, it seems that the Amendment leaves the position in a somewhat unsatisfactory state.
I begin from the point of view that natural gas which is extracted from a concession under the seas in pursuance of a licence should be gas which, in a general sense, inures to this country. Surplus requirements no doubt should be utilisable for the purposes of export, but, in the view that I would put forward from this side of the House that should be done with the consent of, and subject to supervision by, the Minister, and it seems that the proposed Amendment is putting an end to any control which the Minister can have over the export of natural gas obtained from the seabed. I would, therefore, be grateful if the Minister would tell me whether my reading of the Amendment, and the Clause as it would read when amended, is correct or not.
Under subsection (3) the Minister of Power has the right to give or withhold his consent. The broad concept of subsection (3) is that he will withhold his consent unless the area boards—or the area board in whose area any particular premises are situated—have been given what in the Committee stage we loosely described as a pre-emption right. That is what subsection (3) seems to enact at the moment. If the words which the Minister proposes to insert are not included, it would seem that the Clause would require that the Minister's consent should be given before any natural gas is used—whatever "used" may mean—whether in Great Britain or outside.
The question was raised in Committee whether gas is used when it is exported. I would have thought—though I stand to be corrected—that the expression "used" was sufficiently wide in its import to cover the process of exporting gas. Therefore, with the Clause as it is at present worded, I would have thought that the holder of a licence under the 1934 Act, when he has supplied home requirements and is considering whether there is a surplus which could be exported—and it would naturally be sensible to export if there was a surplus—should be under some measure of supervision by the Minister. He should have


to get the Minister's consent, and no doubt the Minister would exercise a wise jurisdiction in withholding his consent or not. That is what the Clause in its unamended form would provide if the word "use" is wide enough to cover the exporting of gas.
If, after the word "gas", the Minister inserts "in Britain", then surely he is limiting in a drastic sense the scope of the Clause. All that he can then do is to give or withhold his consent if the question arises of the use of the natural gas in Great Britain. If the question arises of the use of the natural gas by exporting it from the seabed to a foreign country, then, as I read the amended Clause, the Minister would no longer have any power to withhold or to give his consent. I would be grateful if the Minister would give me his views as to whether the interpretation that I have put on the Clause is the right one or not, and, if it is the right one, will he say what, in his view, is the proper approach with regard to exports?
If the Minister agrees that he should retain a measure of control over exports, then, certainly, the Amendment that he wishes to introduce endangers the position that he wishes to achieve, and my reaction to the Amendment would be to hope that the House would reject it, unless, of course, I have misconstrued and misunderstood the effect of the Clause as it would read if amended as the Minister wants it to be amended.

Mr. Erroll: The Clause as it stands deals with matters within Great Britain. It is common form that Statutes shall be construed as operating only in this country unless the contrary is clearly stated or clearly implied.
All that I am proposing in the Amendment is to exclude from the necessity to seek my consent those uses of natural gas which might take place at the installations themselves. This subsection does not attempt to deal with the question of exporting direct from the installations to other countries. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained in Committee upstairs, that is taken care of by the provisions of the licences themselves. They will require that normally the products, whether gas or oil, will be brought to this country,

but the Minister will be able to give his consent if the conditions seem appropriate for direct export to take place. The question of direct exports will be fully supervised and covered, but it is not done under this subsection. It is taken care of in the licences themselves.

Mr. Skeet: Under the terms of the Bill, if the licensee exports natural gas he perpetrates no offence under Clause 9. All that he does is to commit a breach of the contract under his licence. Is not that the case?

Mr. Erroll: I should like to make certain that the situation is as my hon. Friend has said, but I think that that is the case, and it will be a matter of reviewing the licensing arrangements in the event of such a breach. I hope, therefore, that with that explanation the House will accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, to leave out from "person" to the end of line 43.
When the Minister put down the previous Amendment I thought that he would want to delete the words at the end of subsection (2), which seemed to be unnecessarily repetitive. Taking into account the Amendment which we have just accepted, the subsection will read:
The holder of the licence shall not without the consent of the Minister of Power use the gas in Great Britain and no person shall without that consent supply the gas to any other person at promises in Great Britain.
I would have thought that the last five words were unnecessary. I do not think that the meaning of the provision would be altered if they were deleted.
But there is another purpose behind the Amendment. I had in mind the fact that the Minister's consent would have to be obtained before the person concerned could supply the gas to a customer outside Great Britain. The Minister has made it clear that the licence holder would require the Minister's consent before doing that, so that that argument does not seem to apply any longer.
Nevertheless, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the drafting would not be a little tidier if the Amendment were accepted.

Mr. Erroll: At this late stage in our proceedings I would, naturally, like to be able to accept an Opposition Amendment, but I am assured that it is advisable to retain the words
at premises in Great Brtain
for the avoidance of doubt and to make matters absolutely clear. If the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance, I hope that he will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: I do not see what difference could conceivably be made by taking out these words, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House at the moment, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, at the end to insert:
and in determining whether any industrial purposes are as mentioned in this subsection the use of any gas derived, otherwise than as a by-product, from any natural gas shall be treated as the use of that natural gas".
In Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and others referred to the complicated question of the uses of natural gas. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in particular, referred to the reforming process and asked whether it was an industrial process whereby the processor could acquire a supply of natural gas as fuel and thus escape the monopoly of the local gas board. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for him to be able to behave in this way, and the Amendment—which has been a difficult one to draft—gives effect to what the right hon. and learned Member proposed.
It means that a reforming process would not so alter the nature of the gas statutorily as to make it possible for a person so engaged to escape taking supplies from the gas board. I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Sir F. Soskice: I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance, but I hope that the Amendment really goes far enough. In Committee, many hon. Members felt that subsection (3) placed an obligation upon the Minister to give his consent to the supply or use of gas in certain circumstances. If we look to see what those circumstances are, we find

them included in subsection (4). This is a substantial and highly complicated provision.
The Minister now proposes to add certain words to that subsection and I should be grateful for some further enlightenment from him as to the mechanism of the Clause. I have not quite succeeded in unravelling precisely what is the effect of treating the use of gas derived from natural gas as being the equivalent of the use of that natural gas. What is the effect of that? What we had in mind when we discussed this matter in Committee was rather more than the Minister has just indicated: we were anxious lest the Minister should find himself statutorily obliged to give his consent in cases where natural gas of 100 calories value had been reformed into town gas of an approximate 50 calories value. We thought that under the wording of the Clause the Minister might be obliged to give his consent to the use of that town gas.
We were also concerned about the use of tail gas—the 90 per cent. of the natural gas which remains after it has been subjected to a chemical process and 10 per cent. has been extracted. We were concerned lest, under the Clause as it then read, the Minister might have to give his consent to the free use of the whole of that 90 per cent. content of the natural gas which had been won.
The Minister has given me an assurance about reformed or town gas, but he has not mentioned tail gas. I do not know whether he intended his assurance to go as far as that. If he is in a position to give me that assurance as well, I shall be grateful if he can indicate how the words which he seeks to insert provide that result. How do they produce the consequence which the Minister has indicated?
Have the Minister and his Department been in touch with the Gas Council to see whether it is content with the Amendment? Does it think that by this wording the Minister has succeeded in preserving the position which the Council—quite rightly, in the opinion of my hon. Friends and myself—enjoys as a gas producer and distributor, or does the change in some way impinge upon its existing position?

Mr. Skeet: Would not the tail gas be caught by Section 52 of the Gas Act,


1948? I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a question relating to the construction of this most complicated provision. It contains a number of negatives, and it is difficult to elicit the meaning. I understand that a licensee using gas for industrial purposes as a fuel proceeding under subsection (3,a) would probably receive consent, provided certain conditions are fulfilled, one of which is that the area board has had the opportunity to buy the gas in the first instance. Would not this provision apply also to a subsidiary company?
Subsection (3,b) and subsection (4) provide that a licensee or a subsidiary company can utilise the methane that comes from the Continental Shelf partly as a fuel and partly for processing. If this be the case, I think that we have got ourselves into a rather complicated position. As I understand it, the whole point is to preserve to the gas industry its monopoly. But if we consider the circumstances of I.C.I. for example, which may have as many as 400 subsidiaries, what will be the result? Do they have to sell their gas to one of the area boards? Do they have to buy it back later at what may possibly be a disadvantageous price, the area boards in the circumstances being intermediaries? I do not think that would be satisfactory as a way to run a company. Ft would be simply inserting another step and that would be unsuitable.
What does this consent mean? The consent of the Minister would be given. But it is obligatory if the use is for chemical synthesis. The Amendment says that where it is a by-product it is excepted. Could not reformed gas be excepted, for the reformed gas could be considered as a by-product? If that is so, would not it be exempted? Is this Clause sufficiently watertight to include what the Minister has in mind as essential to safeguard the interests of the gas industry?
It seems that here we have a Clause in which we are attempting to tie up certain matters of planning a part of which I agree. But it is for the right hon. Gentleman to construct the Clause in a way he wishes. On what basis will he give his consent under subsection (3,a)? If a licensee says that he wants

the gas as fuel, is the Minister prepared to exercise his discretion reasonably and allow the licensee to use the gas for his own purposes in his own plant? It is obvious to me that there are ways round this provision. Bottled propane and butane could be extracted from natural gas and supplied in large quantities, or supplied by a parent licensee to subsidiaries, and that would be exempted by the woks in subsection (6). It would be possible to bring liquefied methane from Africa, and possibly later from Europe, and this could be passed out—at great expense—to subsidiaries in the United Kingdom. That has not been shut out by any of the undertakings which, I take it, have been given by the oil companies in respect of a project which comes into operation this year.
If the law in this connection is to be unreasonable—and I pray in aid the rather complicated Clause 9—might not it be possible for a consortium to do its drilling in a neighbouring State's territory rather than in our own territory; particularly if the favourable sedimentary formation lies beneath the Median Line, in which case the gas would be drawn off in a territory under the jurisdiction of a neighbouring State although it would be underlying our own territory? Those are some of the difficulties which might arise unless this Clause is worded properly.
As I see it, the purpose is to provide protection for the gas industry. I maintain that this should be reasonable. It applies to domestic consumers, but to a limited extent it should apply to industrial consumers. If necessary, consent should be freely given to protect their enterprises. Is the Minister closing the door too firmly by this Amendment or is he not doing it properly?

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: By leave of the House, I will speak again to try to explain the Amendment in a little more detail and, I hope, to the satisfaction of hon. Members. Here, we are dealing with something of a compromise between two important principles, the right of the owner of the gas to do what he likes with it and the monopoly position of the Gas Council. Both these rights have to be taken into account.
I wish to reassure the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) that I have been in close and continuous touch with the Gas Council on this and other aspects of the Bill which affect the statutory interests of the Council. The point is that in considering whether gas is used for an industrial non-fuel purpose the reforming process is not to be regarded as the actual use of the natural gas. It is the use of the product of the process which will be the governing factor. That deals with the reforming process.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the residual or tail gases, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet). One could have a fairly substantial quantity of tail gases resulting from a genuine non-fuel use. I admit that this could form a substantial proportion in thermal value of the original gas. But after going through what I should have previously regarded as a genuine non-fuel process as determined in the light of subsection (1) of the Clause this gas will no longer be natural gas obtained under licence. It will be different stuff altogether, and as my hon. Friend pointed out, it will become manufactured gas, to which Section 52 of the Gas Act, 1948, will apply.
For this reason I do not think that it is a matter which may properly be dealt with in this Bill. It is taken care of by the 1948 Act, and the reforming process is taken care of in the Amendment which I hope hon. Members will accept.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES, ETC.)

Mr. Peyton: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, after "by", to insert "or under".
This is a drafting Amendment with the details of which I need not worry the House. There is some doubt if the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, were applied by Order in Council under Clause 3(2) whether it would be said to have been applied directly under the provisions of the Bill or indirectly by Order in Council. The effect of the Amendment is to ensure that any court of summary jurisdiction can deal with the case.

Amendment agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Since the Bill was given a Second Reading, we have had the advantage of considerable debate on the detailed provisions, and it now appears before the House in a somewhat amplified and amended form. We have had the opportunity to discuss individual Clauses and to clarify the intention behind some of the drafting. I hope the House will agree that this has been particularly valuable in respect of those parts of the Bill concerned with rather technical problems of law.
It has also been possible to improve the Bill by the inclusion of a certain amount of new matter. Particularly we have taken account of the concern of hon. Members for the safety, health and welfare of employees on installations which are now expressly mentioned in the Bill. During the Report stage I was thinking of the request made earlier during Committee stage and I had forgotten the very precise way in which the request has been made.
Provision has been made for the Minister of Power of the day to report annually to Parliament on the salient facts about the exploitation of oil and natural gas on our part of the Continental Shelf, which could have such important effects on the national economy. There is now a new Clause which deals with the use and supply of natural gas in a way which, we believe, strikes a proper balance between the different interests concerned. Provision has been made for dealing with radioactive substances and for enabling licensees to acquire certain ancillary rights for their activities. Many hon. Members, but probably not all, will welcome the substitution of "metres" for "yards" in the Bill.
The main purposes of the Bill remain unchanged. They are to put the Government in a position to ratify the Continental Shelf Convention and to issue licences to those concerns which wish to explore and exploit the Shelf. If the Bill is enacted, we shall press on as rapidly as possible. There is the question of the deposit of the instrument of ratification with the United Nations. This can take place quickly. Work on


the preparation of regulations is going ahead and, although there are many difficult and detailed problems, I am confident that the regulations will be laid before Parliament in the comparatively near future. Oil companies and others are maintaining and have been increasing their interest in the North Sea, and I am anxious to issue licences as soon as I can.
In Committee I was asked about the way in which we intend to award licences, and perhaps before the Bill leaves us I should say a few words on this important subject. Among the general considerations by which I shall be guided in carrying out this task are the following five main factors: first, the need to encourage the most rapid and thorough exploration and economical exploitation of petroleum resources on the Continental Shelf. Second, the requirement that the applicant for a licence shall be incorporated in the United Kingdom and the profits of the operations shall be taxable here. Thirdly, in cases where the applicant is a foreign-owned concern, how far British oil companies receive equitable treatment in that country. Fourthly, we shall look at the programme of work of the applicant and also at the ability and resources to implement it. Fifthly, we shall look at the contribution the applicant has already made or is making towards the development of resources of our Continental Shelf and the development of our fuel economy generally.
There might be other considerations from time to time, including considerations of national security, which, of course, will have to be taken into account. I would expect in the event that these considerations would lead to substantial British participation and to the encouragement of other appropriate concerns whose technical and financial help would be welcome. In this way I believe I shall be able to protect the national interest and at the same time act fairly towards the applicants. I trust that the House will agree that this is a reasonable basis on which to proceed.
I wish to say how much I have appreciated the co-operative spirit of all hon. Members during the earlier stages of the Bill, and particularly in Committee when we had most useful and constructive discussions. I hope the House

will grant tie Bill its Third Reading so that we can get on with the next stages of the process.

8.24 p.m.

Sir F. Soskice: It behoves me to say a few words in reply to what the Minister has said. Perhaps hon. Members on both sides of the House will allow me on their behalf to thank him for the kindly words he has said about us and to reciprocate by thanking the Ministers for their courtesy in taking account of difficulties we felt on various stages in consideration of the Bill.
The Minister has made an important statement about the five principles he will take into account in granting licences. The development of the exploration of the seabed around our coasts as the years go by will depend to a large extent on the wisdom with which he and his colleagues exercise the discretion they possess in allocating licences and imposing proper conditions on those who enjoy the rights which the licences will give them.
We think the Bill has been improved by the changes the Government have introduced and, by way of promptings from the Opposition benches, reactions caused in their minds and consciences. We think it is a better Bill, and I am grateful for the changes which have been made. I still feel considerably puzzled after the discussions today about how Clause 3 will work. I am greatly consoled by the Minister, who told me that if I wish to have refreshment while on an installation and find myself 50 miles from the coast it would be unlikely that I should come into conflict with the criminal law. I am most grateful to him for that assurance. If ever I find my way to an installation I shall place infinite reliance on his research into the criminal law as enshrined in Clause 3. I am much obliged to him, and I hope that the House will give the Bill its Third Reading.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Skeet: The Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward such an extremely important Bill. This is a milestone in our developments, but I do not think many people realise the implications of the Bill.
I hope that miners throughout the country and other producers of primary fuel will realise the big changes which


may come about if natural gas is discovered in the North Sea—and there is a fair probability of that. My right hon. Friend is now in a position where he can grant licences and everyone concerned can get to work to try to find if there is natural gas there. Assuming that there is, the United Kingdom will have a very cheap form of fuel available, through which it will be possible to reduce industrial costs. We cannot face the situation with complacency. The United Kingdom must be ready to adapt itself to technological change. It would be quite wrong for me to speak at great length tonight, but I again congratulate the Government on this Bill and for the prospect it offers.
I am a little concerned about Clause 9. It is difficult for many hon. Members on both sides of the House to understand that Clause. Perhaps the only way in which it can be cleared up, if it is not amended in another place, will be to have some litigation about it. Then we can find out what it means. This is what the lawyers do in order to gain clarification. Generally speaking, I think it is heading in the right direction. We want to make the maximum use of the indigenous resources, and to some extent we can consider the Continental Shelf as being indigenous for some purposes at least. As has been mentioned, fortunately it is not nationalised. It would be quite wrong to do that.
We have sought to make possible the use of resources by bringing in the full operation of private enterprise, while at the same time letting the Minister have a certain amount of control. The only thing which disturbed us is the amount of power vested in the Executive, the power to make regulations and to do this and that about which very little is contained in the Bill itself. This is a dilemma, and probably it is one of the diseases of modern life; but there it is. We are about to give the Bill a Third Reading and all those who took part in the Committee and those who have watched with some interest will hope that we can move to the more operative stage when natural gas is discovered on the Continental Shelf.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

TENANCY OF SHOPS (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(CONTINUANCE OF ACT OF 1949.)

8.30 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end to insert:
and there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(6) Where the Sheriff under subsection (3) dismissses an application under this section he may make an order for the payment by the landlord to the tenant of compensation for improvements made by the tenant, not being a trade or other fixture which the tenant is entitled by law to remove; and for goodwill built up at the premises concerned for a period not less than five years prior to the termination of the tenancy'".
This Amendment represents a moral victory over the Government in the Standing Committee inasmuch as the Chairman, by his casting vote, although defeating the Amendment, allowed us to discuss it again. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State regards it as a favour that the Chairman has done us in allowing us to have second thoughts about these proposals.
The advantage which we have over the Committee stage is that we have heard the hon. Lady's defence of her rejection of the Amendment. I do not want to labour this too much, because we hope that she has had second thoughts about it. She based her argument against the Amendment on the ground that none of the Committees—the Taylor Committee, the Guthrie Committee and the later Committee—on Scottish leases made recommendations of this kind.
The hon. Lady is unfair, no doubt unintentionally, in that these Committees were all discussing the protection of shopkeepers and the relationship between tenant shopkeepers and landlords in respect of the Scottish custom of short, one-year leases. There would be some sense in her argument and the Committees' comments if that were the context of our discussion. First of all, however, it was the intention and hope of the Act which we are seeking to make permanent to encourage landlords to offer longer leases to tenant shopkeepers.


As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said in Committee, there is some evidence that this is a growing practice—perhaps not growing as rapidly as we wish, but, nevertheless, a growing practice. If that is true, and I think it is, obviously it is an argument for accepting the Amendment, which is taken straight out of the law of England—and we give credit to our English friends—and is relatively modern.
As the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) said, it is not only good law but workable and just law, and in its permissive nature it allows negotiation between landlord and tenant. There is nothing unjustly mandatory on either landlord or tenant. One can hardly complain that this would be a difficult Amendment to administer if it were part of the Act.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friends want to make further comment on the case which we are promoting tonight. We are glad to see in their places the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) and North Angus and Mearns, both of whom spoke in favour of the Amendment in Committee. I see here none of the hon. Lady's hon. friends of that occasion, and perhaps it is an indication that she intends to change her mind.
The case for compensation seems almost too clear to need restating, but if a tenant shopkeeper has occupied premises for a minimum of five years—the term in the Amendment—clearly he has developed some goodwill and should be compensated for the loss of that goodwill if, by the landlord's decision, he has to leave. The landlord makes this decision either to profit himself in selling the shop or to profit some other shopkeeper or to let the shop at a higher rent or to give it to one of his family. For whatever motive, he profits. We suggest in the Amendment that he ought to share this advantage with the outgoing tenant, who loses his livelihood, at least in respect of these premises.
There is the difficult question to which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns referred to assessing the loss by virtue of improvements made by the tenant shopkeeper in order to promote his business and to give a better service

to his customers. I do not deny that this is a very difficult question, particularly if the incoming shopkeeper is to use the premises for some other purpose. But the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns rightly said that he had had long experience of this in England, and it is a matter on which there ought to be some agreement between the landlord and the tenant. This can be worked out with justice to both parties.
I hope that the hon. Lady, having had an interval of reflection on this matter, will give us a much more satisfactory reply than she gave us in Committee

Mr. Forbes Hendry: As the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said, I spoke in sympathy in Committee with an Amendment along the lines of the one we are discussing. I still have the greatest sympathy with the spirit underlying the Amendment. I thought it monstrous that a tenant should be put out of his shop without any sort of compensation, although that shop may have formed the livelihood for himself and his family for several generations.
During the Easter Recess I have been considering our discussions in Committee upstairs and have given the matter a great deal of consideration. I have also been in communication with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary on the subject and I would like to pay tribute to the courtesy she has shown me when replying to my proposals and questions.
It must be remembered when considering an Amendment of this kind that there must be a great many safeguards because the custom in Scotland is totally different from that in England. It is not normal in Scotland for long leases to be given and, bearing this in mind, I tried during the Recess to draft an Amendment which would produce what the hon. Member for Greenock has in mind but also containing the necessary safeguards. In trying to adapt the existing law of England on this subject to Scottish circumstances I became involved in an Amendment which, by my drafting, ran to nine foolscape pages—and even then I was not satisfied with it.
I am satisfied that if the principle of the Amendment before us could be introduced, with the necessary safe-


guards, it would be a good thing, although its introduction must necessitate, as with agricultural Measures, a great deal of thought and negotiation not only with landlords but also tenants so that a fair new branch of the law is produced, for we are considering a completely new branch of Scottish law.
For this reason I have, with the greatest regret, decided—after the consultations and thoughts I have had—that I cannot support the Amendment as it stands, although I appeal to my noble Friend to set up a committee to investigate the law on this subject. The Lord Advocate has referred to this matter on previous occasions and is familiar with the difficulties surrounding it. I urge my noble Friend to initiate an inquiry to see whether it would be possible to produce a change in the law of Scotland which would be fair to shopkeepers in all the circumstances involved and, at the same time, provide the necessary safeguards. With great regret, I am unable to support the Amendment.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) have done a service in tabling this Amendment. They rendered a service in Committee upstairs when they moved a similar Amendment. As the hon. Member for Greenock pointed out, I supported an Amendment along these lines in Committee and I still feel that the principle behind it is a good one. However, there is a great deal more than this aspect of compensation regarding the tenancies of shops in Scotland which requires to be done if the small shopkeeper is to receive justice. This is only one aspect of the matter.
I had hoped, in Committee, that had hon. Members carried an Amendment along these lines my noble Friend the Under-Secretary would have been persuaded to take action with her colleagues to introduce a code which would give justice to the small shopkeeper in Scotland and thereby do something to persuade him of the desirability, in his own interests, to enter into long leases instead of being content, as he so often now is, to hold his shop from year to year or, perhaps, to hold

it on tacit relocation, as it is known. He should be persuaded that a long lease from the landlord would be of great advantage to him and it should be shown that we need the right framework of legislation to enable proper compensation to be given.
I realise, however—like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry)—having had time to reflect on the matter during the Easter Recess, that this kind of legislation is not as easy as it may at first appear. It would involve a great deal of drafting of a fairly considerable Act of Parliament. I think that it would be necessary to incorporate something like Sections 1 to 4 of the English Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927—which are fairly long Sections—and there would have to be special applications to meet our Scottish position.
I like the principle behind the Amendment and I recognise that the Amendment seeks to do justice to the man who is holding a fairly long tenancy—and the House should thereby be quite clear that this provision applies, by and large, only to the large shopkeeper, because the small man in Scotland does not generally have a long lease. One attractive feature is that the action would be left to the sheriff to decide. I still like the Amendment, I think that it would do justice, and that it might be better if it could be carried, but I must recognise that, at this stage of this present Parliament, to legislate piecemeal in so large a field would not be sensible or wise nor, in the long run, would it do what I am sure both sides of the House want it to do, which is to get a code that does justice to small and large shopkeepers in Scotland.
I therefore hope that what has so far been said about this Amendment, and what will be said about it, will encourage those who sit in the next Parliament—when I shall not have the privilege of sitting with them—to remember the small shopkeeper, and to bring forward comprehensive legislation to cover a subject that is not at all easy, and requires quite a long Act of Parliament to deal with satisfactorily.

Mr. William Ross: I had hoped that we would have heard whether or not the Government intended to accept the Amendment. The debate


has so far been very disappointing. We have an Amendment, ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) and supported in practically everything that is relevant about it by the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) and for North Angus (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley), who, for reasons best known to themselves, have managed to provide for themselves formulas to prevent them voting against the Government.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West did his somersault a little better on the Floor of the House than he did in Committee. He speaks of the long weeks of work he had working out a new Schedule or a new Clause or Clauses that would fit the occasion, but he could have saved himself that amount of work by a very simple device. When he spoke on this same Amendment in Committee he said that he was extremely worried about his hon. Friend's attitude, that he was convinced that there was justice in the proposed Amendment, and that he did not see any intrinsic objections to it. He then voted against the Amendment.
Had he just kept his mouth shut—just sat on the fence—the Government would have been defeated in Committee, because his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus had far more courage of his conviction on that occasion and voted with the Opposition. The result was 7 votes for the Government and 7 votes for the Opposition, and, of course, the casting vote of the Chairman had to leave the matter open for further consideration.
I did not ask the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West for his support on that occasion, but had he then evinced the tug of war going on within himself, and the failure to make up his mind, he would have left the Government in the position of having to do the rethinking and drawing up the new Clauses to meet a situation that had arisen because the Committee had accepted the principle of the thing. Indeed, as the hon. Member knows quite well, we could have dealt with this on Report even had it taken another three Clauses to achieve the effect that is desired.
8.45 p.m.
I disagree that this provision applies only to large shopkeepers. It applies equally to small shopkeepers. The cases which I quoted in Committee were cases of three or four fairly small shopkeepers. Few of them are left in the high streets of our towns these days, and if a certain Bill goes through I dare say that there will be fewer still. The point is that shopkeepers in Scotland tend to hold leases from year to year. There is no formal contract between landlord and tenant. They carry on year after year on the basis of what we call "tacit relocation". Various Committees have considered the position where someone comes along and forces up the rent exorbitantly or tries to get shopkeepers out by presenting them with a situation in which they are asked either to pay a price which they cannot afford or to cleat out.
We provided a valuable safeguard which has continued for fifteen years despite the fact that it was originally intended to last only a short time. It was a valuable principle which the party opposite were also glad to use in relation to hardships under the Rent Act. The same principle of protection was applied in an interim Measure dealing with rent hardships. But in the most recent inquiry into the position under the statute, with a determination whether or not it should be carried on for a further period, the Shearer Committee—and the Shearer of that Committee is now the Lord Advocate—decided that there were changed circumstances. There was a new Rating and Valuation Act applying in Scotland which itself might lead to changes in tenure. This is what is happening and this is why the noble Lady's arguments in Committee were so much nonsense.
The reason is that the Committees which hitherto have made decisions on this matter including the Guthrie Committee on Scottish Leases, which the noble Lady cited at considerable length and which I propose to deal with, having refreshed my memory, dealt with the old tenure occupation lease as applied to Scotland, that is to say, the year-to-year lease. This is not relevant to the position which now arises and for which we hope to legislate.
We are now having the English system coming into Scotland. In fact we are


having English property-holding companies coming into Scotland and they want to safeguard themselves in the matter of higher rents and still higher rents at certain terms during the tenure of much longer leases. We are having leases of five years, ten years and even longer but with breaks at particular times to enable a further increase of rent. The shopkeepers whom we are seeking to protect, therefore, are shopkeepers who have a reasonabe security of tenure. The Guthrie Committee said in paragraph 98(3) that
Normally a tenant would not embark on expensive adaptations unless he had reasonable security of tenure in terms of his lease, and it is not desirable that he should be able to exercise a statutory right to do so, without such security, at the cost of his landlord.
If the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power wishes to intervene, I will very gladly give way. I am sure he is full of interesting knowledge on this subject. However, the point is that the finding of the Guthrie Committee was related to the circumstances of tenure of leases at that time, and the Committee specifically stated it saw no reason for inroducing a provision to give compensation for improvements or loss of goodwill in relation to leases which did not in themselves afford sufficient security for the tenants to embark upon improvements or indeed to expect compensation for goodwill. This Amendment states that the provision in relation to compensation for improvements or for goodwill shall not apply except in the case of continued occupation for at least five years.
It is possible to pick holes in the drafting of the Amendment, though I am perfectly sure, if the Government would only accept the principle of the Amendment, that even now there is time to put that right in another place, but I do not think there is anyone who will think it anything other than monstrous, to use the words of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, West, that a shopkeeper, large or small, shall at that particular time during the holding of a lease be faced with the position of being turned out without any compensation either for improvements which are not trade fixtures or for goodwill.
I think it is reasonable to assume that, if we are going to have this English

system imported into the Scottish system of tenure of leases, be they for shops or anything else, we should import also the protections which are available to English occupants. I think it was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, West who rightly said in Committee that that part of the English law is working well, and he stated, I think quite rightly, that the existence of the legislation meant that there were negotiations which led to agreement. I am perfectly sure that the same thing would apply to Scotland once we were to give similar protection.
I would ask the hon. Lady to shed from her mind those cases to which this does not apply, and not to argue about things which are not in the Amendment. First of all, there is nothing rigidly fixed. It is entirely up to the sheriff to use his discretion whether or not there is a case for compensation, and it is up to the sheriff to determine, on the basis of equity, what the amount of that compensation should be, if he decides to go further with the case. Secondly, we are leaving out of account those fixtures which are purely trade fixtures. So I hope we shall hear nothing about that from the hon. Lady. Thirdly, we have this stipulated time. The Amendment would not apply to cases of tenure of less than five continuous years.
I hope that this time the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. They were not, the last time, saved by the bell; they were saved by the lack of follow-through of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West. I had some very much stronger words for his behaviour on that occasion, but I will spare him, though I must confess myself terribly disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. I really did think he was going to continue his persuasion of the Government to do the right thing about this. He says, "Oh, well, we must leave it to the next Government." We have a saying in Scotland that chance is a great thing. Well, we have got a chance now, and I think we should be very foolish to throw away the opportunity which this Bill presents, and that we should take advantage of this opportunity to do the right thing by the small shopkeepers.
I say quite frankly that the hon. Lady, in Committee, did not furnish any reasonable argument at all against the Amendment. The arguments related to


the Reports of those previous Committees were quite irrelevant, because what we are dealing with now is a changed situation in relation to occupancy of premises. If she does not grasp that, then, of course, she has not even begun to understand what we are talking about. I am perfectly sure that it is this point which was certainly appreciated by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Angus and Mearns. I sincerely hope that the hon. Lady will give us some indication tonight that the Government are thinking about this again, and are prepared to accept the Amendment, or at any rate, certainly prepared to use the opportunity afforded by this Bill to put this matter right.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): When we narrowly escaped defeat in Committee by the casting vote of the Chairman, I quite expected hon. Members opposite to put down the same Amendment again. Of course, I realise that there was feeling on both sides of the Committee that something should, if possible, be done on these lines.
I can assure the House that I have given a great deal of thought to this problem, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) rightly said, the more one examines it, the more one realises how very much greater and complex is the problem than it first appears. I think that the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) has been very valuable, because he voted in favour of the Amendment, but, after giving greater consideration to it, like my hon. Friend for Aberdeenshire, West, he came to the conclusion that this was a much more complicated matter than it first appeared.
I am not at all naturally against the principle which is behind the Amendment, but I shall once again recommend to the House that it should not be accepted. I realise that a great deal has been done in its drafting to try to eliminate the difficulties, which are very well known. It does not apply to trade or other fixtures and it tries, first of all, to apply compensation for general improvements to premises and also for

goodwill established in a tenancy of not less than a period of five years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West referred to the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, and, of course, I examined that Act. The rights which are similar to what it is hoped to achieve are contained in Sections 1, 2 and 3, and they cover no fewer than three pages of the Statute Book.

Mr. Ross: So what!

Lady Tweedsmuir: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) says "So what", but whether, in the 1949 Act, we wish to have three further pages on a subject of this complex nature I very much doubt, and I shall try to show why.
9.0 p.m.
First, the 1927 Act in Section 1 confers a right to compensation and makes provision for determining the amount of the payment. Section 2 places some limitations on a tenant's right to compensation in certain cases. Finally, and most important, there are in Section 3 provisions regarding the giving of notice to the landlord of intention to make an improvement, regarding the landlord's right to object, and the determination of disputes arising therefrom, and, finally, a provision debarring the tenant from claiming compensation unless he has complied with the requirements as regards the giving of notice. I do not think that the wide discretion given to the sheriff in this Amendment could adequately cover all the many points which there are in this extended Section of the 1927 Act.
I have quoted very briefly those three Sections of the 1927 Act to demonstrate that the conferring of a right to compensation for improvements is not by any means an easy matter. There are a lot of questions which have to be dealt with, including the method of determining the payment, the types of improvement that are to qualify, and the need to give the landlord an opportunity of objecting or of undertaking the improvement himself. All these matters have also to be considered in relation to the system of tenure which is in force.
The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) thought that long leases


were now becoming much more the general practice. I have tried to find out as far as I could in the time available whether that really is so, and I cannot say that there is any evidence of a widespread increase in the number of longer leases. It occurs in some cases, but not in a widespread manner.
I have also considered the agricultural Acts, which are equally complicated, but I do not think that they are entirely relevant to the particular position of shop tenancies. However, I should like to return to what happened under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, when some experience had been gained of its provisions for compensation for loss of goodwill on termination of a tenancy. As in the case of compensation for improvements, the provisions were very complicated and apparently were not a great success. At any rate, they were very severely criticised in the final Report of the Leasehold Committee which was presented to Parliament in 1950. That Committee found that the difficulty of proving goodwill was such as to be an almost insurmountable obstacle to the success of claims under the Act. This view was accepted, and in due course the sections of the 1927 Act dealing with compensation for goodwill were repealed by the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954.
The 1954 Act is, I think, much the most relevant to the situation which hon. Members wish to improve. The Act discards the concept of compensation for loss of goodwill and instead provides for payment of compensation related to the rateable value of the property when the tenant is unable to obtain from the court an order for the renewal of the lease. Briefly, compensation is payable if the court is precluded from renewing the lease because the landlord has proved that he wishes to let the premises as part of a larger unit, or that he intends to redevelop the premises, or that he intends to occupy them himself; and compensation is not payable where the lease is being terminated because the tenant has failed in certain of his obligations. These English provisions for both types of compensation are, no doubt, well suited to the particular conditions in England and Wales, where there is certainly a much

longer practice of longer leases. Whether they would be equally suitable if applied to the quite different system of shop tenure which still prevails in Scotland is at the very best a matter of doubt.
That is why I must advise the House against accepting the Amendment. I am not saying that we should rule out for all time the possibility of giving a right to compensation on the termination of his tenancy to a shopkeeper. I am, however, saying that it would be wrong to take this step now without much more careful consideration than is possible under the proceedings on this Bill—for instance, of the possible effect on the contracts that are made between landlords and tenants of shop premises, and I also think that we need a very careful assessment of the results of introducing into their negotiations a new factor in the form of a statutory right to compensation.
Therefore, I do not feel that in this short Bill, which is meant to perpetuate an excellent Measure which has proved its worth for 14 years, I could possibly accept the Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: If I may speak again by leave of the House, I should like to comment on this speech of the noble Lady. I am very disappointed. Particularly in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), I thought that the noble Lady was going to tell us that she was about to set up a successor to the Guthrie Committee, the Taylor Committee, and others which have gone before, to look into the problem.
This has been the burden of our complaint. The Scottish Office has failed to grasp the wider implications of the situation surrounding the Measure, which does not solve the fundamental problems. What the hon. Lady says merely returns to the point that the Government have not yet seen fit to appoint a committee to go further into the question, otherwise her position would be quite unassailable. However, she gives no assurance that the matter will be pursued further by the Government. She leaves it to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) to try to find a solution in the next Parliament. Is is a sad reflection on the Government that we should be in that position.
We have had the old argument on the principle of unripe time. No one disagrees with the principle of the Amendment. Indeed, everyone has blessed it. The hon. Lady agree with it in principle, but she was not specific. It is all the more sad, therefore, that we have been unable to get a suitable formula and it is extremely disappointing that the Scottish Office is not willing to appoint a Government committee to look into the matter further. This is an imortant Amendment and although I realise its defects I feel that it should not be withdrawn.

Amendment negatived.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

Bill read the Third lime and passed.

INCOME TAX MANAGEMENT BELL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 6.—(LEAVE OF GENERAL OR SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN ASSESSMENTS.)

9.8 p.m.

Mr. John E. Talbot: I beg to move, in page 6, line 35, to leave out "or may have".
This is a Clause of a penal nature. It gives the Revenue the right to reopen a man's affairs for an indefinite period—indeed, for as long as his life. I know of a case which was instituted in 1955 and has not yet reached finality. The man's affairs are being investigated back to 1927. This Clause is a very formidable weapon, which it is quite proper to use against the sort of person who can properly be found guilty under it. If tax has been lost, then it is proper to bring proceedings. In other cases, however, there may only be reasonable grounds for suspecting that tax has been lost. That is what I believe "reasonable grounds" must mean. If the inspector has reasonable grounds for thinking that the tax has been lost, he is perfectly right to bring proceedings, but when the Clause says that he can have reasonable grounds which may be wrong, and the tax which may have been lost in fact has not been lost, then the subject is faced with a double possi-

bility. On a matter as serious as this, that is not fair. The Revenue ought to be satisfied, before turning the muck rake on a man's entire career, that tax has been lost, or that there are reasonable grounds for thinking that it has been lost.
I want the House to understand precisely what this means. Many people who are subjected to this type of inquisition are not guilty of the charges made against them, but they have an enormous amount of trouble to rebut the attack of the Inland Revenue on their affairs. They are often people who are not wholly literate and who are unable to make the searching inquiries and the complete assessment of their position which this procedure requires unless they have professional advice, which has to be paid for. If in the end the whole thing turns out to be a mare's nest, that professional advice still has to be paid for and the Crown contributes nothing.
I dare say that I shall be told that the Clause is merely an adaptation of the existing position. If so, the existing position requires correction. We are here as the House of Commons not to act as collectors for the Inland Revenue or to wangle the law in its favour, but to maintain a fair and just balance between the Revenue and the subject. I can recall that in the days when I read history at school I read that this was what the House of Commons was supposed to be for. It was supposed to protect the citizen against the Crown—and there was a great deal of trouble in this place years ago and Statutes were passed before the House would grant Supply to the Crown. That was all because our predecessors were awkward and were not rubber stamps for the Inland Revenue or the Government, but insisted that anything taken out of the pockets of the taxpayer and paid to the Crown should be justified up to the hilt. Yet in this year of grace we produce a Clause which seems to permit absolutely anything.
An inspector of taxes may go to his office one day, having had a domestic difference or having bought a poor piece of meat at the butchers, and seize on the file of John Jones and say, "I am sure that this man must have concealed some tax; I saw him in the golf club the other night standing whiskies


all round". Perhaps that example is rather far drawn, but there is nothing in the Bill to protect the subject against the institution of a long inquiry which after years may never reach a court and may never reach the general and special commissioner who has to give leave for operations to start. The Clause is extremely harmful and gives no protection to the subject either in the payment of costs if unreasonable action is taken or if an unreasonable time is taken, often longer than would be the case in criminal proceedings.
9.15 p.m.
Cases have been known in which proceedings of this sort have been instituted as a result of anonymous letters, or disgruntled employees leaving a business. The anxiety that that causes to people who are often not guilty of what they are charged with produces serious medical problems. I might even say that men have committed suicide because of the pressure brought to bear on them by the tax collector.
The time has come when the House ought to think a little less about the convenience of the Revenue and a little more about justice to the taxpayer. I want to hear from my hon. Friend whether he has any suggestion to make certain that his officers do not institute proceedings of this sort in cases where there is a mere speculative thought that the person may not have paid all the tax that he ought to have paid.
The standard of intellectual precision involved in the words only requires that tax may have been lost to the Crown. It is not good enough to put somebody on inquiry for the financial transactions of a lifetime merely because some factor may be present which leads one of the Revenue officers to speculate, not that tax is lost, but that tax may have been lost. It is for that reason that I have caused the Amendment to be tabled, and I hope that I shall hear something by way of comfort from my hon. Friend.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Green): Having studied as best I can, not only the particular history to which I think my hon. Friend may be referring, but as many of the other histories of these back cases that I have had the chance to study. I think that I understand and

in many respects sympathise with my hon. Friend in his effort to protect the taxpayer against what he presents as being the all-powerful Revenue.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at it in this way: if the Inland Revenue is unable, on a reasonable premise—which is really what the words "may have" mean—to pursue an inquiry which is directed towards securing that the taxpayer does what the law demands, namely, produces all the facts of the case, then I believe that my hon. Friend would be putting an unreasonable weapon into the hands of that very small minority of taxpayers who go out of their way not to admit and to fulfil their obligations under the law.
It is not a question of inspectors raising assessments on spec because they have had a bad breakfast, or because the butcher has not delivered the meat on time, or whatever it is. Inspectors do not have time for fishing expeditions of that kind, and if they embarked on them to any degree at all they would rapidly bring into contempt their own common-sense administration of the duties which the law currently lays on them. If they went on these fishing expeditions, they would destroy that element of trust between the administration and the taxpayer on which the administration relies to a great extent to get the proper business of the nation done. Inspectors are not encouraged by the Inland Revenue to go on these fishing expeditions. If they were to do so they would produce a series of hypothetical cases of the kind which my hon. Friend has in mind. If those cases were produced we should deal with them in our common-sense, pragmatic and practical fashion.
But this is not the case. What we think it is right to be in a position to deal with is that very small minority of determined tax evaders who refuse to make any admission—although under the law they are charged to do so—or to co-operate in any way in an investigation. It is precisely in the case of this minority that the power to make an assessment and subsequently to issue precepts is essential. If this were not possible we could not bring the cases to a determination. We should be left with a limbo of the law and its administration in which it would increasingly pay other


taxpayers to join that very small but determined minority.
I understand what my hon. Friend is after. All that I ask him to accept is that it is simply not an interest of the Administration to pursue needlessly or without reasonable cause the case of a possible evasion, whether deliberate or not, but that if inquiry were prevented—and the Amendment would make it very difficult to carry out that inquiry—the people who would suffer would not be the very small minority of determined evaders but the overwhelming majority of good taxpayers, on to whom an additional burden of tax paying would inevitably be cast, because the small minority would be able to get away with it.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept from me that this power is not strengthened in the Bill. It is simply retained. History—certainly recent history—shows that this power has not been abused. It is used only in the defence of the general majority of taxpayers and not in a sort of witchhunting pursuit of one or two people, decided upon personally by any one inspector.
On those grounds I very much hope that the House will not accept the Amendment. Indeed, I hope that my hon. Friend will think it right to ask leave to withdraw it. I hope that he will do so in the realisation, from what I have said, that I have tried to examine the Amendment in principle, from the point of view of the consequences of its application if it were accepted, and of my belief that its acceptance would do real damage to the vast majority of taxpayers who make a point of coming completely clean with their Income Tax affairs when they are asked to do so.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The House will always give very careful and sympathetic attention to an Amendment which seeks to safeguard the rights of the citizen, not only against the Executive but against its agents. In the hands of bureaucracy many citizens feel helpless and ill-equipped to stand up for their own rights. I may as well make a clean breast of it: as the House knows, my bias is heavily in favour of the Inland Revenue. Nevertheless, I have tried to bring a detached mind to bear upon the Amendment.
This Amendment is a sequel to what is done in Clause 5, which transfers from the general commissioners to the district inspector of taxes the right to make assessments which is now in the hands of the commissioners. It was thought desirable—I agreed with it—that the transfer of the power from the general commissioner to the Inland Revenue under the provisions of Clause 6 should be qualified in certain cases and in certain respects. It was thought proper to require an inspector of taxes to get the leave of a special or general commissioner when proposing to make an assessment out of time on the ground that tax had or might have been lost to the Crown owing to fraud or wilful default or neglect of any person.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) should bear in mind the overriding conditions upon which an assessment of this kind may be proposed. The commissioner would require some evidence that there were prima facie grounds for believing that revenue had been lost, or might have been lost, owing to some serious delinquency on the part of the taxpayer concerned. I am quite sure that no commissioner would give leave for an assessment to be made out of time on these grounds, unless some evidence were given to him which would enable him to give leave for the assessment to be made, fully believing that he was doing the right thing by the Revenue, by the community and by the taxpayer concerned.
I said a moment ago that the House should safeguard the interests of the citizen and protect him against bureaucracy. It has another duty, not so to cripple the administration of its own laws as to defeat their purpose or enable some citizens to escape from his proper obligations to the Revenue and the community under Acts passed by the House. I am bound to say that the closer one gets to the seamy side of tax evasion the more one's sympathies are with the Inland Revenue, because one realises that, notwithstanding the powers given to the Inland Revenue, it is very often a long, tiresome and an unequal contest between the Revenue and the taxpayer who sets out deliberately to evade his responsibilities.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Brierley Hill need fear that there is


any mischief done by leaving in this Clause those words which he proposes to take out. So far as I can tell, they carry the wording of the Clause just that little bit further to enable an assessment to be made in the belief that something has happened, even though at that moment there is no concrete evidence that it has.
Let me remind the hon. Member that this is leave not to harry a taxpayer to prison or to make his life a misery. It is leave to make an assessment. When that assessment is made the taxpayer has all the rights provided by the Income Tax Act to appeal, to appear personally before the appeal commissioners, and to take all the steps open to the citizen with the best advice he can obtain so that his interests may be watched in the subsequent proceedings. That is no less than any other citizen has whose assessment is made at any time or in these circumstances by leave of a commissioner.
9.30 p.m.
I do not think that the case has been made for this Amendment. To leave out the words which the hon. Member seeks to leave out would take that little something from this Clause which it is important should be there without in my opinion putting the taxpayer at any disadvantage in the circumstances which the hon. Member has contemplated. I have considered this very carefully to see whether the House would be justified in deleting these words. My opinion is that the House would not be wise to leave out these words. I do not believe it will do any harm to any taxpayer to leave them in. To leave them out might damage the ability of the Inland Revenue to deal with a particular type of taxpayer at any particular time.
Hon. Members have only to read the Annual Report to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to see the running battle which is going on between them and defaulting taxpayers year by year. Year in and year out the number seems scarcely to diminish, the amount recovered from lost tax seems scarcely to increase. The penalties may have gone down because this House decided a little time ago to moderate the penalties which would be imposed by the Inland

Revenue on taxpayers who neglect or default. There is, of course, still the right of prosecution of a taxpayer who is alleged to have been deliberately fraudulent. When that case arises it is decided by the courts in the normal way.
In face of this recurring evidence of the problem of evasion, the House has to be very careful indeed not to snatch from the hands of its own agents, the Inland Revenue, suitable and proper equipment to deal with this minority of taxpayers who, unfortunately, continue in our midst and must be brought to book if the rest of the country is to feel satisfied that the Revenue is efficient and that others are not evading their responsibilities while honest taxpayers are doing their best—often in conditions of hardship—to meet the demands of the Inland Revenue.
I sincerely hope that the hon. Member will respond to the plea of the Financial Secretary and will withdraw his Amendment. Otherwise, I shall have to advise my hon. Friends not support the hon. Member in the Lobby.

Mr. Talbot: In view of the strong and almost unanimous plea from both Front Benches, I wish not to proceed with this Amendment. I only express regret that its purpose seems to have been misunderstood. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Green: I beg to move, in page 6, line 36, at the end to insert:
(2) The General or Special Commissioner giving leave to make such an assessment shall take no part in the proceedings, and shall not be present, when any appeal against the assessment is heard or determined.
The Amendment would debar the commissioner who has given leave under Clause 6 for an out-of-time assessment to be made from taking part in the hearing of the appeal against the assessment. This follows partly from discussions in Committee on what may be the locus standi of the commissioner from whom the inspector seeks leave to make an assessment out of time.
It was quite properly presented that the person giving the leave to appeal should not also be the person appearing to judge the appeal. This was a proper representation, and it was reinforced by


the Law Society to the effect that it was at least conceivable—the Society did not pitch its case too high—that the commissioner who gave leave might, having heard only the Revenue side of the case in the first instance, be unconsciously influenced in his mind against the taxpayer when it came to appeal, and that although the practical risk might be negligible the commissioner concerned should, nevertheless, be excluded from the appeal proceedings on the principle that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done.
On consideration of these thoughts, we have decided that it is right to maintain the spirit of the existing arrangements in Section 6(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1952, and the Amendment therefore debars the commissioner who gives leave from sitting at an appeal. I hope that this commends itself to the House.
I should take the opportunity of saying something about the proceedings in Committee when to some extent this point was discussed. I was asked what the situation was between the commissioner and the taxpayer when leave to make an out-of-time assessment was sought by the inspector. I was asked whether the commissioner could go to the taxpayer and seek his side of the matter. I said:
I believe that the commissioner has not only the right but the duty to seek further information, or refuse the application, if he feels any doubt. It is not necessarily an automatic granting because, so to speak, the inspector has knocked on the commissioner's door. The commissioner may inquire further of the taxpayer or his agent if he wishes.
That is fundamentally correct.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) went on, quite properly, to ask:
Of the taxpayer himself, verbally or orally?
I replied "off the cuff",
I am pretty certain of that. Perhaps my hon. Friend will leave it to me to check right through what I have said, and I will certainly undertake to do that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th February, 1964; c. 18.]
I have checked right through what I said and what the case has been. I have taken the advice of the Solicitor of the Inland. Revenue. I am certain that this is the right advice to take. The fact is that the commissioner cannot, under

an ex parte application, himself directly approach the taxpayer. When one thinks about it, this is quite right; otherwise it would not be an ex parte application. But what he can do—and this follows the substance of what I said—if he feels that he needs further information is to tell the inspector what he needs. It is very much up to him to do that. If the inspector can obtain the further information only by communicating with the taxpayer or his agent, it is then up to the inspector either to do just that or to drop his application for an out-of-time inquiry.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. W. Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay will not feel that I misled them. I thought it right to try to put the record completely straight on this occasion. I hope that they will agree that we have gone a substantial way towards meeting what I appreciate was the point they were raising in Committee by making quite sure that the commissioner who may grant leave to an inspector's application to make an out-of-time assessment shall not be the commissioner who will judge the subsequent appeal if an appeal is made by the taxpayer.

Mr. William Clark: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for accepting the spirit of the Amendment which was moved in Standing Committee. He will appreciate the great worry that has been expressed regarding the situation which arises when leave is applied to the commissioner to raise out-of-date assessments, if I may put it that way. The commissioner is in the position to hear only one side of the story and the Amendment moved in Standing Committee was designed to ventilate this worry. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has agreed that the commissioner who hears the application for an out-of-date assessment should not hear the appeal—and, obviously, the taxpayer may now put forward his arguments for or against the raising of the assessment.
I still have a slight worry about the position of the Revenue in this situation. The Revenue may sometimes be neglectful to raise an assessment. This may happen through no fault of the taxpayer. I should have thought that,


administratively, my hon. Friend would have been able to deal with such matters; that where an application is made to the commissioner for an out-of-date assessment, the Revenue should say to the commissioner, or point out in the application to the commissioner, that no neglect is involved on the part of the Revenue concerning the raising of the assessment.
Where an application is being made for an out-of-date assessment, although the taxpayer has the right to appeal and go through the whole process of the appeals machinery, I do not believe that the Executive should have the right to put forward a one-sided case—although I am not suggesting that the Revenue would do this—but that the Revenue, in any application to the commissioner, should say, "These are the facts of the case. The Revenue has not been neglectful and an out-of-date assessment should be made."

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: I support the Financial Secretary in the Amendment, which gives the taxpayer a safeguard he at present does not have. Under the new arrangements, in connection with assessments which are made in time by the inspector, any appeal to the commissioners by the taxpayer will be made to a body which has had no part in making the original assessment. At present the taxpayer appealing to the commissioners may have his appeal heard in part by commissioners who have originally made the estimate, and in part by additional commissioners who are added to the general commissioners for hearing appeals—and that imports a degree of independence into the appellant body which would not otherwise exist.
At present, the taxpayer may have his appeal heard by commissioners who have had a part in making the original assessment. This Amendment removes entirely from the taxpayer any danger that an appeal may be heard by commissioners who have had something to do with an earlier stage in his tax liability. I am sure that we can welcome that, and agree to it.
Where I think hon. Members opposite may be going wrong is in not understanding what the present practice is. The

commissioners already make assessments out of time if they are recommended to do so, and see fit so to do, without hearing anything from the taxpayer. No commissioners when making assessments, whether in time or out of time, say to a taxpayer, "Look here, is this all right?" Nor do they say to his professional adviser, "We have in mind making an assessment of so much, and would like your comments." That does not happen now. The commissioners make their assessments on the recommendation, and the evidence, given to them by their assessor, who is now the inspector of taxes.
Therefore, all that is happening under Clause 6, and this Amendment is related to this change, is to provide some qualification of the right of the inspector to make assessments out of time off his own bat, and to bring into the proceedings the independent judgment of the general or special commissioners whose consent is necessary before the inspector may act.
It might have been a little cumbersome, but it would have been quite proper to have provided in the Bill that in the cases covered by Clause 6 the inspector would have had to go to the commissioners as a body to get an assessment made—as he does now—but we know that in many cases it is not all the commissioners who hear any such application, and here a special responsibility is being put on the general or special commissioner, whose consent must be given, to satisfy himself that what he is asked to do is right. The responsibility is fixed on him. We also say, again and again, that these provisions under Clause 6, to which the Amendment is also related, apply only where there is prima facie evidence of fraud, wilful default or neglect by any person.
I think that hon. Members on both sides can be satisfied that in all these cases there will be a file an inch thick. There will be abundant evidence upon which the inspector goes to the commissioner for leave to make an assessment out of time. As the Financial Secretary has said, the inspector will not go just with a hunch, just with a suspicion, but with some evidence upon which he can ask the commissioner to make an assessment on a specified amount. The commissioner cannot say, "Yes, I will make


an assessment of anything you like, or of nothing in particular." The commissioner must give his consent to an assessment of an amount. He will ask, "How do you get at this amount?" The inspector will then produce a computation showing his estimate of the revenue lost on the grounds specified in Clause 6. That puts a very specific responsibility on the inspector.
I really do not think that there are grounds for the misgivings that have been expressed by hon. Members opposite. In any case, the Financial Secretary's Amendment strengthens the position of the taxpayer vis-á-vis the Revenue machine, and I think that the House can approve that in good spirit. I am fully with the Financial Secretary—I am sorry to be so much on his side; it must be very embarrassing for him, and it is embarrassing for me, too—when he says, in clearing up any possible misunderstanding that arose in the Standing Committee, that it is neither the duty nor the right of a commissioner, put in these circumstances, to go canvassing the taxpayer or his professional adviser to find out what he thinks about what it is proposed to do.
The commissioner's job is to satisfy himself, on the evidence produced by the inspector, that there are prima facie grounds for his doing what he is doing under Clause 6. When he has done that he has discharged his duty both to the taxpayer and the Revenue and it is up to the taxpayer and his adviser to follow the normal processes of appeal if they contest what is proposed to do. I believe that in nine cases out of 10 the amount of assessment proposed to be made will have been agreed with the taxpayer and his advisers after long and tedious examination of the ramifications of the taxpayer's affairs and the amount specified in the assessment will be accepted and the inspector will go to the commissioner for formal ratification of an informal agreement which will give statutory effect to the assessment proposed to be made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10.—(PROFITS TAX ASSESSMENTS AND APPEALS.)

Mr. Green: I beg to move, in page 12, line 5, at the end to insert:

The General or Special Commissioner giving leave to make such an assessment shall take no part in the proceedings, and shall not be present, when any appeal against the assessment is heard or determined.
I need say no more about the Amendment than that it is the obvious corollary for Profits Tax purposes to what we have done in Clause 6 for Income Tax purposes. If we did not do this for Profits Tax we would look rather stupid, having proposed the Amendment in relation to Income Tax. I therefore move this Amendment on the same ground as I moved the Previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1.—(FORMS OF DECLARATIONS.)

Mr. Talbot: I beg to move, in page 21, line 26, to leave out "or in accordance with their instructions".
The mischief which the Amendment is designed to avert is the passing of files between the inspector of taxes and the Estate Duty Office. I understand that there is a general blanket authority for Income Tax files which are secret to be passed to the Estate Duty Office, the officers of which do not take a specific oath of secrecy. They are, of course bound, as are all Government Departments, by the Official Secrets Act, but it might well be thought that in relation to this subject matter, which is perhaps not comparable to the disappearance of plans for a destroyer or the appearance of Olga Petrovski, no serious notice would be taken.
This matter came to my notice professionally in a case in which I have now ceased to take a professional interest because it is concluded. It appears that the Estate Duty Office sent a query which bore the words
It is noted from the deceased's Income Tax file that the business was…
and so on and
It is further noticed from the tax file that Defence Bonds and some Investment Trust Units were purchased…
from a certain source. I have always suspected that information passed, but I never knew until I received that official document that files were actually taken from one office to another and that the person who had written these words had the Income Tax file in front of him at the time of writing. The one point which has been made in this debate, quite


rightly, is that the tax-paying system of the country works on the basis of good will and co-operation.
If we are to have said, and said widely, what at present is only stated among accountants and solicitors, that the secrecy of the Income Tax office is merely an illusion, and that there is, at least as a post mortem, a complete system of cross-filing on a man's affairs by the departments of the Inland Revenue, we shall very soon find the community take its own remedies against that situation. It is only playing with words to say, "We shall not disclose the contents of an Income Tax file to the Board of Trade because that is another Government Department", but that it is perfectly all right to transfer knowledge—a whole file of knowledge—from the Income Tax office, which is under the obligation of secrecy, to the Estate Duty Office, which is not.
It is time that the Government began to consider a self-denying ordinance in this matter and that Income Tax files really ought to be secret and kept only in and used only in that Department, because if that is not to be so we shall destroy that confidence in tax paying. Are the Government going to confess to the country that a vast system of espionage into a man's affairs already exists? Do we want a Government who are omnipotent already to be also omniscient and omnipresent?
Do we want the whole line-up of modern taxation to rest not on income, or even taxes on capital, but on a situation wherein upon everything a man has he has to pay duty to the State? That is only one stage removed from saying that everything a man has belongs to the State and he is to be allowed to keep only a little in accordance with the State's wishes. This is fundamental to the confidence of the tax-paying community, whether it be alive or dead, in the Government. Are we reaching the situation even now where files exist in the Estate Duty Office on people who are already living, files fed with information which comes from the Income Tax offices—or newspaper cuttings, such as an hon. Member referred to the other day, about a man's occupation?
I really think the time has come for the Government to deny themselves some of the power which they seem to take.

I follow very acutely the fact that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) is so very much in line with Government policy. He, perhaps, is looking on himself as the Government at only a very short remove. I feel that under his control the situation would be like that described in the Bible where King Rehoboam said,
My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.
The form of this Bill is designed to create a nest of scorpions which can be used against the tax-paying community.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will feel that there is something in this point. Is he going to insist on giving the Board of Inland Revenue dispensing power, power to dispense with the oath of secrecy of the inspectors of taxes for any reason and for any purpose? Suppose an inspector of taxes wrote to say, "I am having a very bad time with So-and-So and cannot get any remedy. Can I write and tell the local paper?" And suppose that the commissioners wrote back and said, "Yes". That would be a possible use of this dispensing power, a power which we did not allow to King James II.
So I hope that this House will decide that this dispensing power be not granted by omitting the words "or in accordance with their instructions". There are sufficient reasonable exceptions under the oath to deal with any situation arising out of litigation or for communication from an inspector of taxes to his superiors of anything which he ought to communicate. It is not right to have this secret power through this system of passing files, and it is not right to leave in the hands of the commissioners power to render the oath of secrecy completely nugatory.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Green: I have no difficulty in sympathising with my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot)


in his anxiety to make as sure as he can make and as the House can make that there is no arbitrary power deliberately put into the hands of those members of society who are our bureaucrats. Of course we do not want arbitrary powers put into their hands. But I think that my hon. Friend's argument is erected on a misconception.
This is not a case of comparing the Treasury with the Board of Trade, for example. The Board of Inland Revenue is itself directly responsible for both the Estate Duty Office and for the administration of the Income Tax. There is, therefore, no question of two different people seeking to acquire each other's knowledge or secrets clandestinely. They are, in fact, the same body of responsible people being responsible for the same item—the gathering of taxes. The analogy which my hon. Friend drew between the Treasury and the Board of Trade does not stand examination.
I hope that my hon. Friend will look at his Amendment in that light and decide that it is not constructed on a premise which is viable. I put that to him as a matter of principle first. The second argument—I suppose I could have put it to my hon. Friend first, but I believe it would not have taken account of what I understand to be his genuine interest, that unlawful powers should not be secretly acquired—is that if the words to which he takes exception were deleted, the inspector of taxes would still be authorised to disclose information to the Board of Inland Revenue and the practice of exchanging information between branches of the Department would continue to be lawful on the same arguments as apply under the existing law, which is the premise that I originally erected—that these are officers serving one Department, and that to prevent them from serving that Department wholly, which is perhaps the intention, would be to make that Department that much weaker, once again to the detriment of the majority of taxpayers. Of this I have no doubt.
I ask my hon. Friend to think again about this. I hope he will not press his Amendment. First, I assure him that even if I accepted it, it would make no practical difference for the reasons I have just given. I am sure that he is much 100 practical a man to seek to

press an impractical Amendment. Secondly, it really is true that these inspectors and all servants of the Board of Inland Revenue serve one and the same Department. These are not watertight compartments within the Inland Revenue. If they were, one or other of them would be responsible to different members of the Government from those to which they are responsible. As it is, their responsibility is joined. They are responsible to the Treasury. They are not separate Departments.
On these grounds, I do not see how one would be justified in having what I might call an oath within an oath and in preventing one member of a Department serving a single head from telling that head what he knew.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I do not agree with the extravagant sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot), but I am very disturbed by the Financial Secretary's speech. I have always thought that it was open to a tax inspector to communicate any information about a taxpayer's income tax return to the Estate Duty Office. That may be a good or a bad thing. Opinions may differ. I gather that the hon. Member for Brierley Hill thinks it a bad thing. I consider it good and necessary.
It is clear that the position should be made plain. I had always understood that there is no kind of secrecy between the Income Tax departments of the Board of Inland Revenue and the Estate Duty Office. Indeed, for the purposes of the Exchequer, it is necessary to have complete interchanges between these two branches. It had not occurred to me until I heard the Financial Secretary's speech that anyone doubted that this was the case. It is a good thing that the hon. Gentleman should have expressly affirmed that it is the case. I thought that everyone already knew.
That, however, does not dispose of the matter, because, if it is the case, then it seems to me that these words to which the hon. Member for Brierley Hill objects are quite unnecessary in the oath. The Minister has not disposed of the technical reasons put forward by the hon. Gentleman because he himself says that, if he accepted the Amendment, it would make no practical


difference to the present position. I do not think that it would.
Even with the omission of these words, I understand that it would still be open to the Income Tax departments to make any communication it wished to the Estate Duty Office. I think that it should be able to do so. What baffles me, therefore, is why these words are necessary at all. They are obviously not necessary for the purpose of communication between the Income Tax departments and the Estate Duty Office. For what are they required?
These words must have been inserted for some other purpose. What is that purpose? I understand the importance of secrecy of taxpayers' affairs within the Treasury and the whole ambit of the Inland Revenue. If these words are necessary, what is the reason? I have heard no reason from the Financial Secretary to explain why they are necessary. Unless there is a more satisfactory explanation, the insertion of these words in the oath would enable the Board of Inland Revenue to give instructions to an inspector or collector to disclose information about a taxpayer's affairs either to the Board itself or to the Minister of Agriculture, for instance, or anyone else. I am far from satisfied with the Financial Secretary's explanation.

Mr. Green: To use a rather hackneyed phrase, we are trying to modernise the declaration. We are attempting to give explicit cover, which seems a sensible thing to do in this modern age. My hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot), concerned about this matter, perhaps did not see at first sight what the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), with his considerable practice and experience, takes as being self-evident—that inspectors should have this requirement within the operation of the Inland Revenue as a whole and not within separate branches. It seemed therefore to make some sense in the modern age to make explicit in the declaration what he was able to do and what he should do. I agree that if the words were not there, that would not affect the practice, but—and this is a matter of judgment—it seemed more sensible to make explicit what the prac-

tice was, if only because one hon. Member had raised a doubt.

Mr. Fletcher: I must differ from the hon. Gentleman because I agree with what he said originally—that the words are not necessary. His mere statement as to what the practice is is very valuable, so that it is on the record and everyone can know it. The danger in putting in the oath words which are unnecessary is that the Government are probably sanctioning something which they never intended, namely, the possibility of an inspector disclosing information about a taxpayer's affairs not merely within the ambit of the duties of the Inland Revenue, but outside it.

Mr. Green: I appreciate that and I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that issue. However, I do not think that his fear is justified, because it is only within the ambit of the Inland Revenue that this explicit declaration applies. In this case inspectors, but also all other people who may make the declaration concerned with Inland Revenue matters, are bound within the operations of the Inland Revenue, and the Inland Revenue itself is bound not to give instructions which force people who make the declaration to break the spirit of the oath.
In general I agree that one should never use words which are unnecessary, because in doing so one may open doors to something about which one is not too sure, and I appreciate that all these declarations both in intent and content are within the ambit of the Inland Revenue. All we were seeking to do was making explicit what was permissible within the context of the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue itself must still be bound by its own confidentiality between itself and the taxpayer—for what I think is the commonsense reason that if it is not and is not seen to be so bound in confidence between the taxpayer and itself, the Inland Revenue, using the term corporately, would find that the operation of our tax laws would not in practice be possible. The Inland Revenue knows this and no head of the Inland Revenue would instruct an inspector to tell the Minister of Agriculture, or whoever it might be, because to do so would break his own instrument of administration


which in practice and effect is the goodwill of the vast majority of taxpayers. That goodwill cannot be maintained unless the Inland Revenue as a corporate body maintains confidentiality between itself and the taxpayer, individually or collectively.
10.15 p.m.
I can see grounds of criticism for putting in these words. They were put in to try to make explicit what had been criticised as not being explicit. There it is. I stick by my knowledge—though that is perhaps the wrong word to use—that the Inland Revenue as a corporate body must not, and certainly will not, seek to break the bonds of confidentiality between the Inland Revenue as a corporate body and those individual taxpayers with whom it has to deal.

Mr. Talbot: Does not my hon. Friend agree that according to the language of the Clause it would be open to the Board of Inland Revenue to give a direction to an inspector of taxes to make a communication to a person not in the Inland Revenue? Is not that the point which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) is seeking to make? These words are, therefore, unnecessary.

Mr. Green: I have accepted that. We were trying to meet the demand for something explicit. Indeed, we were trying to answer the question why it was not made explicit. Having tried to meet the need to make this explicit, I am simply saying that it cannot be in the interests of the Inland Revenue as a corporate body, if that is how it is to be regarded, to destroy its own instrument, which I think is the suspicion now being cast.
If by any chance, which I do not think is at all likely, the Inland Revenue used these words to establish some kind of tyranny, some kind of round-the-corner action, some kind of action not sanctioned by the House—and really what is being said tonight is a powerful sanction for it not to do so anyway—I have no doubt that in view of this debate its powers would be promptly trimmed by the House. It is because I know that it is not within the practice, not within the interests, and not within the desire of the Department of Inland Revenue to do any such thing as break its own prime

need for confidentiality, that I am confident about these words.

Mr. Houghton: I think that the House is making very heavy weather of this, and I shall try to brighten the proceedings as well as enlighten the House. This trouble comes from trying to translate lengthy rigmarole which is already in the Act into a brief, comprehensive and businesslike formula.
The House should also realise that this oath which the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) proposes to amend is all-embracing on all information received by Inland Revenue officers in the course of their work. At present, there is no such all-embracing oath of secrecy made by any Inland Revenue officer. He is covered by the Official Secrets Act, but he does not make a specific oath, except under Schedule D. This new oath is designed to cover everything—to strengthen the omissions and the weaknesses of the oath of secrecy given by Inland Revenue officers in the past. To that extent it is an improvement. It is a tightening up of confidentiality in respect of Income Tax affairs.
I am surprised that the Financial Secretary did not give other examples of the difficulties which would arise if these words were not there. Is there any sanction here for one inspector to pass a file to another inspector in another district, unless, in accordance with instructions given by the Board of Inland Revenue, he must do so? Yet how can the Inland Revenue machine operate if files cannot be passed between one tax district and another except via the Board of Inland Revenue?
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill has raised a more sensitive point—the disclosure of information to the Estate Duty Office. He probably says to himself, "Within the empire of Income Tax the Inland Revenue can exchange what it likes; it can fling files about all over the country and none shall say it nay. But when it comes to sending information to the, Estate Duty Office we must draw the line." In his mind the hon. Gentleman cannot distinguish between the Estate Duty Office and the Board of Trade.
But that is where the line is drawn. The Customs and Excise authorities—


which is another branch of the Inland Revenue—the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and everybody else who would like to get their hands on Income Tax files from time to time to assist them in the better discharge of their duties are on the other side of the line.
But if we suspect that the Board of Inland Revenue may be in breach of its own oath—and it is appointed by letters patent for the care and management of these taxes; it has more than a statutory duty to perform; it has a responsibility given to few bodies—if the House is to be nervous about the way in which it will use its powers under its own oath it is perhaps a good thing that responsibility should be fixed upon it and not upon any individual officer who might feel that he has a right to disclose information without being in breach of his own oath.
The responsibility rests upon the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. If they give instructions to their officers to disclose information they will take responsibility for the issue of those instructions. That is where the responsibility and the blame—if any—should lie, and it is desirable that the oath should make that clear.
The House should also be absolutely clear about the whole paraphernalia and purpose of P.A.Y.E. P.A.Y.E. is Schedule E, which is not covered by any oath of secrecy given by an officer of the Inland Revenue. Under these provisions he will have to make an oath in the terms proposed in Part III of Schedule 1, and this will place a more specific obligation upon him than is now placed upon him, perhaps, by the Official Secrets Act.
But in the operation of P.A.Y.E. it is impossible to get along without disclosing something to somebody. After all, what are code numbers but a disclosure of information? I know that the code is so hidden from the employer that although he knows what the total of allowances is he does not know how it is made up. But in the operation of P.A.Y.E. an employer may fill up an Income Tax form stating the earnings, to date, of an employee who is moving to another employer. There is then a

disclosure of information by one employer of wages paid by him. That information is provided as part of the machinery of P.A.Y.E.
We must realise that this elaborate mechanism contains features which were quite foreign to the Income Tax of the past.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will my hon. Friend say whether there would be any change in the administration of P.A.Y.E. when these words are inserted and the Bill becomes an Act?

Mr. Houghton: These words will cover all the processes and procedures of P.A.Y.E., and such disclosures as the Inland Revenue believe it necessary to make will be made on its instructions. As a matter of fact, it will not make any difference to the present practice. It is formalising what is being done at the present time.
The question of the Estate Duty Office is the old one of whether the left hand should know what the right hand is doing. Under their letters patent the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are responsible for the care and management of all the duties within the Department and they have regarded themselves—I think properly so—free to use all the information received in the course of discharging their duties for the discharge of their duties. Surely there cannot be any barriers raised within the Department against information properly passing for different purposes. After all, the special commissioners of Income Tax look after Surtax and they cannot do their job unless information is supplied to them by local district inspectors.
At one time taxpayers who might have been liable for Surtax were required to make a separate return to the special commissioners. It was not made to the local office at all. All that a Surtax payer had to disclose locally was untaxed interest and other sources of income which it was necessary to tax locally. He was under no obligation to disclose taxed income, whether dividends, or ground rent or other matters subject to tax at source. The House abandoned this duplication of returns, and long since has made it possible for a return of income made to a local inspector to satisfy the


requirements of the Act with regard to Surtax. That means that the district inspector shall be free to disclose information to the special commissioners to enable them to make an estimate for Surtax purposes so that this information passes freely within the Department; and so it is done in connection with Estate Duty.
People who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear, and we ought to remember that when straining ourselves, in conditions of over-anxiety, to protect

someone against information being made available which would probably reveal some failure on the part of a taxpayer or his executors. To that extent it is a safeguard against tax evasion. Finally, may I say that I am very upset to be classified as a scorpion. If I were ever moved to chastise the hon. Member for Brierley Hill, which I am not at the moment, I should not chastise him with scorpions. I should use a far more convention al means.

Amendment negatived.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Green: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I think we all agreed that this was a necessary Bill when it was first introduced. I should like to record my gratitude to both sides of the House and to all hon. Members who have taken a personal interest in the Bill for the help they have given to its passage. It has been amended in the course of its passage and, I think, improved by Amendments. I gratefully acknowledge the help I have had on that.
There is a particular point to which I should like to make reference. It is to Clause 5 (5), which provides for notices of assessment to be served on the person assessed. Sub-committee C of the Estimates Committee, which I have a personal reason for remembering, put a somewhat different view from that which is the maintained view of the Government, namely, that formal notices relating to taxation should continue to be sent to the taxpayer himself and not to his agent. There is a good reason why the taxpayer should himself have to be notified of what his tax liabilities are. There is a thoroughly good reason; namely, that there should not be any sort of difficulty or that the taxpayer should be able to say that he personally was not formally told. This is a good reason why fundamentally it should remain the position that the Inland Revenue should tell the taxpayer himself and not someone else, what are his liabilities for tax.
We wish to meet the convenience of agents in the matter of notices of assessment, particularly where the point is of special importance, so the Inland Revenue propose to make certain new administrative arrangements. Beginning with the 1965–66 tax year, the Revenue will be prepared to send copies of all Schedule D and Profits Tax notices of assessment to the taxpayer's agent in cases where the taxpayer's main source of income is a trade or profession. Written authority of the taxpayer will be required in the first instance, but, once given, the authority will be effective for future years until withdrawn.
I thought the House would wish to be informed of these proposed arrangements because considerable representations, as the hon. Member for Sowerby will know very well, have been made

for a substantial number of years by professional bodies that we should make some move in this direction. We have been unwilling to make it until we saw the ways and means of preserving the central principle that it is on the taxpayer personally that tax assessments are served. This I think we have preserved. I hope that in this age of increasing complexity we have met the main needs of agents who act for the taxpayer by making it possible, provided that the taxpayer authorises it, for the agent to receive a copy of the notice of assessment in the cases I have mentioned. I have tried to think this matter through as we have been proceeding with the Bill and Third Reading seemed an appropriate point to give notice of this administrative change.
I come back to the point I made originally. I believe this Bill is a necessary Bill. I think it is a good Bill. I think it will very much help in the present day and age the administration of the inland revenue. I repeat my very real thanks to all who have assisted, not only the passage of the Bill, but in improving it in Committee.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: We come to this stage of a Bill which was started 44 years ago. It was 44 years ago this month that a strong Government capitulated in the face of prejudiced Opposition from various quarters and withdrew the Revenue Bill before even it had been given a Second Reading. No greater humiliation was ever borne by any Government than by the Government of 1920 when they withdrew the Revenue Bill. I am glad that the Financial Secretary is able to see this long trail of taxation reform brought to a successful conclusion. It is by no means the end of reform. It is an interim Bill which does a great many useful things.
What the Financial Secretary said about the new arrangements for sending notices of assessment to a taxpayer's professional adviser on written authority given by him will be for the convenience both of the taxpayer and of his professional advisers. Undoubtedly for a long time the professional advisers of many taxpayers have been put at a disadvantage because notices of assessment have


gone direct to the taxpayer who has promptly put them in a drawer and forgotten all about them, believing, "My accountant looks after all this". But the accountant has not had the notice of assessment and he is probably out of-time in giving notice of appeal, and valuable time is also lost in preparing the taxpayer's affairs if there is need for further action. This provision will be mutually convenient; it will be properly done under the Bill and it will be a good thing.
I must be very restrained in my few brief observations on Third Reading because in some quarters I have been accused of bestowing generous, and indeed lavish, praise upon the Government for the introduction of the Bill. I read in The Times Review of Industry, which must not be confused with the Aims of Industry, that the political correspondent said,
When it was first debated in the House of Commons, Mr. Douglas Houghton
—I will not refer to the description of me as Labour's taxation expert—
spoke of it in such lavish terms that the Conservative Party managers really ought to consider using his speech as part of the Tory Party General Election manifesto".
The Government must be in desperate straits if they intend to quote me in their General Election manifesto. The Liberals intend to quote me in theirs. They are constantly referring to some favourable comments which I made on the Liberal tax booklet. But the Conservative Party is surely not in the same parlous state as the Liberal Party. What is one to do when one has waited 44 years for a Bill—all in living memory, all in my memory? One either has to be begrudging about it and to ask, "Why did not they do it years and years ago?"; or one has to receive it as if it were just another wet day over Easter; or one has to become lyrical about it, because it is a miracle—and that is what I did on Second Reading, and I must not do it again.
I must interpolate this additional difficulty: there were considerable touches of irony in my Second Reading speech. Irony is a difficult and gentle art even in the House of Commons, and when it is reported in HANSARD it does not look a bit funny. People take it seriously.
I believe that the Bill is a landmark in tax administration. It is long, long overdue. A great deal that was in the Revenue Bill of 1920 has been integrated in what I would describe as reform by stealth—that is, just pushing in a new Clause in the Finance Bill and achieving one little bit after another little bit. But there was such a big accumulation of reform needed that a separate Bill was required to complete the job. I am sure that the House is doing a good job tonight. The Bill should have an easy passage in another place and will then go on the Statute Book. I am willing to receive any pressing invitations from the Board of Inland Revenue to dine with them and to celebrate this most auspicious occasion.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I will not detain hon. Members for long. During the debate on Second Reading, and again in Committee upstairs, I put forward my views on this Bill clearly to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and especially my anxieties about Clauses 14 and 15. I do not propose to repeat those views because there can be no doubt that this is essentially a piece of spring cleaning legislation, although for Northern Ireland it may involve some slightly more fundamental consequences.
I would like, first, to express my thanks to the Financial Secretary for sparing time to see me recently when we discussed in greater detail some of the points in the Bill which were worrying me. Although I regret the provision contained in Clause 14 whereby the rehearing provisions so near and dear to Northern Ireland's accountants and taxpayers are going out of the window, so to speak, I appreciate the additional strain which would be placed on the Northern Ireland judicial machinery if the High Court step, in addition to the court of appeal, had been permitted as two separate avenues for the appellant taxpayer. I appreciate the limitation that has been placed in this connection, although I will not develop this matter now.
I hope that if the Bill proves injurious to the rights of the taxpayer in Northern Ireland the limitations on the judicial machinery will not prove insuperable in rectifying the situation. I recall the assurance my hon. Friend gave in


Standing Committee about the need to gain experience of the new appeal machinery and its effect on Northern Ireland. I trust that if that experience shows that hardship is being encountered it will be possible for amending legislation to be introduced and for the status quo to be restored.
I am aware of the arguments about the dilatory taxpayer, and one can have no sympathy for such a person. Any steps which are taken to prevent his tactics and antics are welcome. I hope that the Bill will not confirm some of my fears; that by reducing the steps of appeal hardship will thus be caused. I hope that, after reasonable experience of the Bill, amending legislation will be introduced with the support of my hon. Friend if such a step is found to be necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

EMERGENCY POWERS BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered; read the Third time and passed.

PROCEDURE

10.44 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I beg to move,
That the matters of the form of the Defence Estimates; of the disclosure of matters contained in the Reports of Select Committees; of the allocation of time to proceedings on public bills; of opportunities for brief speeches; and of the method of signifying objection during the time for unopposed business, being matters relating to the procedure in the public business of the House, be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure.
This Motion deals with a number of points, although I do not think that I need say very much about them. There is the suggestion that certain matters should be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. These are, firstly
…the matters of the form of the Defence Estimates…
That follows a Report from the Estimates Committee of 19th February and

the Public Accounts Committee of 3rd March. The Motion then deals with
…the disclosure of matters contained in the Reports of Select Committees…
This is so that the Select Committee can consider whether reports from committees which deserve adequate Press coverage, discussion and so on are given an opportunity to receive that; and whether any alteration in procedure is necessary;
…of the allocation of time to proceedings on public bills…
there has, I think, been a feeling that there should be further consideration of that matter:
…of opportunities for brief speeches…
there is a Motion on the Order Paper, signed by many hon Members, and it is appropriate that the Select Committee on Procedure should consider those matters. Views have also been expressed about
…the method of signifying objection during the time for unopposed business…
and I earlier agreed that this should be referred to the Select Committee.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, will you be good enough to advise me on which Amendments, if any, are being called?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member—after "speeches" to insert "of morning sittings"—has been selected. It would be convenient, I think, for the hon. Member to speak on it now.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I very much appreciate that advice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I was very pleased when I first saw this Motion on the Order Paper. I thought that it provided private Members with a great opportunity to use the impact of their experience to improve future procedure. I have heard many conversations in many quarters of this Palace of Westminster and have read many comments and analyses in the newspapers critical of our procedure, and I thought that as this present Parliament will terminate within six months, if not before, the Motion provided a great opportunity for hon. Members now serving the House to make constructive proposals for the


consideration of the Select Committee on Procedure.
I felt that the matter should be treated as one of extreme urgency and that the Select Committee should meet as often and as regularly as possible so that its Report could be prepared before the termination of this Parliament and then form a basis on which those in the next Parliament could benefit by past experience. For example, during this Parliament Mr. Speaker has had great experience which should be drawn on by the Select Committee.
It was with such thoughts in mind that I tried to put a number of constructive proposals on the Order Paper. Some were not allowed, but, as a result of the advice of the Clerk to the Table, which I much appreciated, I was able to put down the following early-day Motion—
That this House is of the opinion that Mr. Speaker should be consulted by the Select Committee on Procedure in order to obtain his advice based upon his experience during this parliament, that the matters before the Committee should be treated urgently so that their report may be implemented early in the next parliament, and that consideration should be given by the Committee to the Procedure applied in the Australian and New Zealand Parliaments"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope that he will bear in mind that he is, in fact, speaking now to his Amendment—after speeches", insert "of morning sittings".

Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes, but when we are considering the Motion moved by the Leader of the House it is surely right to make some constructive proposals which should be considered at the same time by the Committee. All that I am doing is making further proposals which might receive the Committee's attention.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is perfectly in order in speaking on the Motion which has been moved, and he himself has not yet moved his Amendment to restrict the debate, but he would be out of order in referring to other Amendments of his own which have not been selected.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Do I understand that as I have had the good sense not to move my Amendment yet I have not restricted the debate and, therefore, I

am in order in speaking on the original Motion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Thank you.
I had the privilege about 18 months ago of visiting Australia and New Zealand. I spent a great deal of time in the Parliaments of those countries in listening to debates and talking to Members behind the scenes. As a result, I am convinced that although ours is looked upon as the Mother of Parliaments we have now a good deal to learn from others. One of the matters which gave rise to the original Motion was the question of limiting speeches. I have often felt sorry for the Chair when speeches have gone on for a long time and when many hon. Members who have waited to make their contribution have had to go away disappointed. The time has arrived when hon. Members should assert themselves and should insist that speeches should take up no more than 20 minutes, except on a great occasion, just as happens in New Zealand and Australia; the Member speaking would have the right to ask for a further ten minutes and thereafter a second ten minutes, making 40 minutes in all. Surely, with the aid of the enormous amount of documentation now published, that length of time should be sufficient to explain anything that needs saying.
I have had a fair amount of experience. I know what goes on behind the scenes. I know that Ministers are provided with a large amount of "paper", and the least said about some of it the better. I am convinced that most statements should be and could be made within 40 minutes. Several Prime Ministers in my time have confined themselves to 20-minute and 30-minute speeches. It would be all the better for this whole assembly if the House would insist on its right to give more hon. Members the opportunity to speak.
I therefore move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, after speeches", to insert of morning sittings".
I do this to give the Select Committee on Procedure the opportunity of considering the matter. It was said during the war that what I now propose could


not be done, for many reasons which I will not go into at the moment. But during the war we did it, and the proceedings finished, if I remember rightly, between 5 and 5.30 p.m. If it could be done in wartime, then it could be done in these times.
There are, I know, objections, but some of them really ought not to be made, because the business of this House should come before everything. In my view, the only proper objection to the proposal is the one about Ministers' time, and for that I have a great deal of sympathy, because if a Minister is doing his job well he has his hands full and is working almost day and night. I know the large amount of work which goes on in the Departments, and for that I make all allowance. Even there, though, arrangements could be made to get over the difficulty. Therefore, I am suggesting that the House should meet at 11 o'clock in the morning, and that the time of termination of business in this House should be between 5 and 5.30 p.m.
If that were the basis upon which the business of the House and of its Committees were transacted, it would be much better for the efficiency of the House, and also fairer to the staff. It is all wrong that we should employ the staff for the number of hours a day we do; that is long since out of date, and the time has arrived when someone should speak out about this. I have had a fair amount of experience, and I have no hesitation in saying that the staff of this House, from the Clerk to the servants outside, are amongst the most conscientious people serving in any capacity anywhere in this country.
It is not only a question of the efficiency of the House in this Chamber; it is also a question of accommodating the many Committees, and more of them, which will be required if the policy of devolution and modernisation is to be carried out, and if we are to get the best service from the staff who serve us well. The time has arrived when a little modernisation should take place in the times in which they serve the House. It is for these reasons I have moved the Amendment and made the suggestions I have.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Anything which the hon. Gentleman the Member for

Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) says of course carries great weight, because he has been a respected Member of this House for, I think, nearly thirty years. The suggestion in his Amendment has been considered before, and I think that even he will admit that there are considerable arguments against it. Nevertheless, I am perfectly happy that this should be considered by the Select Committee, and I am perfectly prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the matters of the form of the Defence Estimates; of the disclosure of matters contained in the Reports of Select Committees; of the allocation of time to proceedings on public bills; of opportunities for brief speeches; of morning sittings; and of the method of signifying objection during the time for unopposed business, being matters relating to the procedure in the public business of the House, be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND MEASURES

Resolved,
That the Faculty Jurisdiction Measure, 1964, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.—[Sir J. Arbuthnot.]

11.0 p.m.

Sir John Arbuthnot: I beg to move,
That the Holy Table Measure 1964, passed by the National Assembly of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
This Measure arises out of the revision of the Canons. It seeks to bring the law into line with existing practice. Judgments of the Privy Council have held that the main altar of the church must be made of wood and be movable, although altars in side chapels can be of stone. In many cathedrals and parish churches there are pre-Reformation altars made of stone. There are also some in modern churches of stone or concrete. The object of the Measure, therefore, is to permit the use of stone or other suitable material and thus to regularise the position both now and in the future.
The Measure met with some opposition in the House of Laity, but on final approval it was carried by a total of 389 votes to 36. I suggest to the House that there is no question about the legality of stone tables in a church, other than the main table. Therefore, it would seem to follow from that that there cannot be any doctrinal objection to stone tables as such. Although I do not know of any stone table in Methodist churches, I understand that there would be no difficulty about the installation of one should anybody be so minded.
So far as the Church of Scotland is concerned, the Rev. George Macleod, an ex-Moderator of the Church of Scotland, has installed a marble table at Iona, and there are a number of Communion tables in Scotland. St. John the Baptist, Perth, and Whitekirk have pre-Reformation tables, while Hyndland and Aberlady have post-Reformation stone tables. Virtually, therefore, what the Church of England is asking for in this Measure is only the same liberty as is enjoyed by the Free Churches and by the Established Church of Scotland.
The Ecclesiastical Committee reported on this Measure that it was expedient and ought to proceed.

11.3 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I begin by lodging something of a complaint that we should be debating a Measure of this importance—and I hope that when I have finished my very few remarks it will be seen that this is a very important matter—at this time of night at the end of a very long day.
It may seem to those who are not Christians, or those who are as indifferent as many people are to Christianity nowadays, that it is a very trivial matter whether the Holy Table in a Church of England church should be constructed of stone or wood or should be movable or immovable, but when this question is taken with a great many others, with the order of the service, with the dress of the clergy taking part in the service and with the actions and words that are used, it becomes an extremely important matter indeed. With many other questions, it concerns what we regard as the very central act of Christianity. It concerns the service of Holy Communion, which is sacred to all Christians and is one of the only two services or acts of wor-

ship that were specifically prescribed by the Founder of Christianity Himself.
To those who are Christians the meaning and nature of the sacrament are of prime and supreme importance. This may not seem a very important matter to those who look on at the Christian religion, but to those who take part it is of vital importance. It should be made clear that there has always been two main divergencies of view between Christians about the nature of the Holy Communion.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: indicated dissent.

Captain Orr: I am not certain why the hon. Member should shake his head.

Mr. Fletcher: I was objecting to the word "always".

Captain Orr: For many centuries, then, if the hon. Member would like me to be exact. However, I am not at all sure that I could not defend the use of the word "always" if I wanted to. But let us say that for many centuries there have been divergencies of view, sincerely held on all sides, as to the meaning of the Holy Communion.
I think I am right in saying—I am not misrepresenting anyone—that the Roman Catholic, or medieval pre-Reformation view of the Church of England, was that the Holy Communion is essentially a sacrifice in which the priest offers Christ for the living and the dead. The other view is that of the Reformers—one which I and my hon. Friends hold to be the true view of the Scriptures—that the Holy Communion is a gathering of the people of Christ around a table to have, through the ceremonial eating of bread and drinking of wine, communion with each other and with Christ.
It is the latter view which is the view of the Church of England and which, at the time of the Reformation, was declared to be the view of the Church of England and which is deliberately pointed in the whole of the ceremonies of the Church of England to be the right view of the Holy Communion.
In the 39 Articles it is clearly defined:
… Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead,


to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.
Every clergyman of the Church of England gives his assent to that Article on ordination. Consequently the view of the Mass as a sacrifice, sincerely held by many people, is still a view which is illegal in the Church of England.
When one begins to consider the question of whether or not the Holy Communion is an act of sacrifice one immediately sees the significance of the action of the Reformers at the time of the Reformation in removing from almost all the churches the stone altars which existed. It was held by them and, I think, rightly held, that such altars were dangerous and that they led to superstition and to their being regarded as alters of sacrifice instead of, as the Reformers held, as the Holy Table around which people gathered to partake of the Holy Communion.
It has always been held—although perhaps I should withdraw the word "always" in case the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) takes me up on it—by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that, since the Reformation, the use of altars that were immovable and of stone was illegal, and such altars in the Church of England are still illegal. It is true, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Sir J. Arbuthnot) pointed out, that similar structures inside chapels are not. If that anomaly exists, as I admit it does, one would have thought that the right way to put it right would be to make sure that the same law applied to side chapels and the tables in side chapels as applied to the main table.
However, it is very important to understand that this is the first of a great number of Measures. If it were on its own, if it were an isolated Measure, as it were, to legalise what already existed, then one might look at it slightly differently; but this Measure in itself not only goes further than that, not only permits the introduction of more and more stone altars instead of wooden tables, but is the forerunner of a great number of Measures which will be coming before us in the course of the revision of Canon Law.
Obviously, it would be our of order to go into the subject matter of all those

other Measures at this stage, but it is relevant to whether we pass this Measure to consider what sort of Measures are likely to follow it. There are many which do not concern the Holy Communion service, but there are many dealing with Holy Communion at present in the course of revision of the Canon Law which has not been reformed since 1604. An example is the Vesture of Ministers Measure.

Sir Hendrie Oakshott: On a point of order. Surely this Measure consists of three Clauses, one operative and two which do not affect the main question of the Measure, and is in no way concerned with the matter of vestments or any other provisions connected with the revision of Canon Law.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is for the moment in order in pointing out the perils which might attach, on the view he is presenting, to the introduction of post-Reformation stone altars accompanied by changes of vestments, but obviously the matter is strictly limited and I am listening with attention.

Captain Orr: I did not intend to debate: the merits of vestments, for clearly that would be out of order. I am merely saying that when considering revisions of Canon Law of which this is a part—and introducing the Measure in another place the Bishop of Chester made it perfectly clear that this was the first of a number of Measures—it is right to see what other Measures are coming along, without debating their merits in any way.
For example, there are the Vesture of Ministers Measures, Canon B XII which deals with those who administer the sacrament, Canon B XV which deals with those who may receive the sacrament and which would exclude all other denominations from taking the traditional occasion of conformity and hospitality which has been practised in the land for centuries. There is Canon B XVII which would permit the use of wafers for reservation. There is this Measure which would allow the table to be made of stone, and there are others dealing with vestments and other things used in the Holy Communion service.
The view that one would take of this Measure in isolation might be different from the view that one would take of it if it were the first of a whole series of Measures dealing with the service of Holy Communion. Instead of dealing with this Measure in isolation, and dealing one by one with the others which are to come forward, surely it would be better if my hon. Friend were to take this Measure back to the Church Assembly and ask that body to put all the Measures dealing with Holy Communion into one comprehensive Measure which could then be debated in this House? This is a subject which all Christians regard as vital, and the House should debate the whole matter to decide whether power should be granted to the Church. Assembly to bring in ideas which are at present illegal in the Church of England.
I do not think that anyone would deny that if all the proposed Measures were passed by this House the result would be to legalise the use of the sacrifice of the mass in churches in this land. Many people sincerely believe that that is right, and no one would deny them the right to hold that belief, but surely we in this House have the right to say whether the doctrines, the views, and the practices of the Church of England should be changed? Surely that decision should be taken by Parliament as a whole, and not by a handful of individuals late at night?
I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should take this Measure back to those responsible for putting it forward and put that view to them. There are many reasons for so doing. For example, we cannot amend the Measure. It is one of the vices of the Enabling Act that we must either approve it or throw it out. One does not wish to divide the House on a matter of this sort if one can possibly avoid it, and I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw this Measure and see whether there is a better way of dealing with it.
This Measure would give power to introduce stone altars. There is nothing in it to say that their introduction must be approved by the parish councils. Are they to be invited to express an opinion about this, or will an incumbent be able to install one on his own authority?
For all those reasons, I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should take this Measure back to the Church Assembly and see whether we can debate all the Measures which it is proposed to introduce at a better time and in a better way, after the country has had time to understand what is going on in the churches and what Parliament is being asked to approve.

11.20 p.m

Mr. Eric Fletcher: No one would doubt the sincerity of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), or the truth of his first observation, that what we are dealing with this evening is not a trivial matter. There are two ways of looking at the proposal. One—which I prefer and which is the simpler and perhaps more rational one—is to say that since the Enabling Act was passed it is the primary function of Parliament to consider what the Church of England wants and that therefore the most relevant observation is that this Measure was passed in the Church Assembly by substantial majorities in each House. In the House, of Bishops there were no dissentients; in the House of Clergy it was passed by 175 votes to 16 votes, and in the House of Laity by 187 votes to 20 votes.
It is therefore a Measure which, after considerable debate, commands the overwhelming support of the Church Assembly.

Mr. John Page: In the Appendix it says that the Amendment to prohibit the erection of new stone altars or the changing of existing movable or wooden ones to stone was defeated only by a majority of one in the House of Laity. As an absolute ingènue, I should like to ask the hon. Member to explain to the House why the final Motion, which seems to contradict that which was defeated by only one vote, was passed by a vast majority. This is what is worrying me and others like me.

Mr. Fletcher: My recollection is that during what is the Parliamentary Committee stage in the Church Assembly various Amendments were discussed, including the one to which the hon. Member has referred, and votes were taken on those, as reported in the


Appendix. Then, after the Amendments had been disposed of in the Committee stage, the Measure as a whole was submitted to the plenary session of the Church Assembly, where the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity voted separately by houses. Therefore, it is significant that what is the equivalent of the Third Reading in Parliament the Church Assembly approved the Measure by overwhelming majorities in each House.
My view on matters of this kind is that this House should be primarily concerned—unless there are overwhelming reasons to the contrary—to sanction what appears to be the evident desire of the Church itself, because it was for that purpose that the Enabling Act was passed.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member is using the expression "the Church itself" as though the Church Assembly and the Church were the same thing.

Mr. Fletcher: That was the object of Parliament in delegating these powers to the Church Assembly. Be that as it may, the hon. and gallant Member is within his rights in asking Parliament to reconsider the matter as res integra on doctrinal grounds. I am not sure, however, that he is equally right to ask the House to consider this Measure in relation to many other Measures to which he referred, which may or may not come before this House later. I would think that all that we are concerned with is any doctrinal questions that anybody thinks are involved in the specific proposals in the Measure, which is a very short one, and which proposes to change the law by providing that in future the Holy Table may be either movable or immovable, and may be made of wood, stone or other material.
I concede at once that this was a matter of some moment at the time of the Reformation. There is no doubt that the whole question whether the central object of Christian worship in a church should be called the altar or the Holy Table was considered in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to be a matter of very great significance. It is noteworthy that the Book of Common Prayer does not refer to the word "altar" at all; it is always referred to

as "the Holy Table". The only service in the Church of England today in which there is any reference to the altar is the Coronation Service.
I objected to the use by the hon. and gallant Member of the word "always", because I do not think it reasonable to assume that we should always live in this country in the context of the Reformation. There has been a growing tendency in recent years to consider what was the earlier practice of the Church. Therefore, although the hon. and gallant Member said the doctrine was always this or always that, it is right to remind the House that the circumstances of the Reformation, which were a protest against extreme abuses of the then Roman Catholic faith which had grown up, are not necessarily an expression of doctrinal differences for all time.
In the days of the early Church there was no doctrinal difference between a stone altar or a wooden table. If one reads the patristic writers, one finds that the Early Fathers used the terms "table" and "altar" indiscriminately. One finds in the early Fathers the words "mensa", "altari" and "ara" used without any doctrinal significance at all. One finds throughout Christendom, whether eastern or western, that there were altars of stone and altars of wood. It was only at the Reformation that it was thought that some doctrinal difference depended upon whether an altar or table should be of stone or wood or should be movable or immovable.
Although the law was changed—and I think rightly changed—at the Reformation, everyone knows that although it may have been technically illegal, a certain number of churches continue to retain stone altars—or, if one prefers, stone tables—and still continue to do so. Some have been built subsequently with faculty permission from the chancellors of the dioceses concerned. Experience has shown that although some people, I think a minority, still think there is some doctrinal significance attached to it, the majority of those worshipping in Church of England churches today attach very little concern to whether the altar or Holy Table is movable or immovable. Personally I regret that it is at the east end of the church instead of in the middle of the church as the rubric in the Book


of Common Prayer suggests that it should be.
These matters grow up; customs change over the years, and experience has shown that there is this view in the Church today, and in the spirit of greater toleration which exists in the Church of England and throughout all Christian Churches there is a dominant feeling that if in certain places certain people prefer that the Holy Table should be of stone and movable or immovable it is most unfortunate if they should not have the same freedom as those who prefer that it should be of wood. This Measure, like various other Measures coming forward, is inspired chiefly by the desire not of making any change in doctrine but of giving the maximum of satisfaction, within the permissive boundaries of latitude which are reasonable, to the varying preferences of the different parts of the Church of England. I hope that the House will feel it reasonable to ratify what seem to be the overwhelming wishes of the Church Assembly.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle: I do not intend to delay the House long, but I am in complete agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).
I wonder whether the House realises that the Measure comes before us for the first time; we have had no time to consider properly the questions involved, although there is no doubt of the importance of the matter to the ordinary church-going parishioners. The Measure invites us to approve a complete reversal of the law relating to the Holy Table over 400 years past. During the last century or so many attempts have been made to introduce stone altars into parish churches. They were all refused by the church courts until the beginning of this century, when chancellors began to grant faculties for stone slabs to be used as table tops, although this was contrary to the existing Church law. In this way, it seems, diocesan chancellors have been building up a case law wholly contrary to the Reformation Church Law of England.
I am told that there are more than 70 such altars in parish churches and that a number of these have been put into

position without any semblance of legal authority or without even the consent of the Parish church council. To achieve this end, in many cases some lovely old communion tables have been put to other uses within the church, some ever relegated to the belfry or the vestry. The House is being asked to legalise the illegality of some 70 or more parishes out of more than 15,000. Whatever is the House doing to let its valuable time to be taken up with such a matter?
With great respect, I smell a rat. As a consequence I object to any further steps being taken to undo the Reformation. This Measure is the first of a series to come to us from the Church Assembly. Very shortly we shall be invited to approve other Measures designed to carry this process even further. This Measure comes as a little bit of ecclesistical kite-flying designed to discover how far the House is prepared to allow the national Church to de-Protestantise herself. It seems to me that if the House allows the Measure to go forward it will make it possible for every wooden communion table in every parish church to be replaced with a stone altar and so undo something which was deliberately carried through in the early days of the first Queen Elizabeth, who had these offending stone allays turned out of the churches on Scriptural grounds, a change then made in order to emphasise the communion of the people with God at a family meal around a Holy Table, instead of being a mere witness of a sacrifice being offered on their behalf upon a stone altar.
In saying these things and in speaking of this important matter, I am not seeking to call into question the beliefs of those who think otherwise, but I am reasserting the historic attitude and doctrine of the Church of England. Since there is so much involved in what appears at first sight to be a small matter, I am sure that many hon. Members will understand why there should be considerably more time given for a full debate on this and related Church Measures. Unless we can see this Measure as a part of a whole process of revision of Church law, we shall be inveigled into the hasty approval of piecemeal legislation without realising


the total effect of what called upon to do. I feel, I must strongly oppose as it stands.

11.36 p.m.

Sir Hendrie Oakshott: If I differ slightly from my hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), I hope that they will believe me when I say that I in no way question the sincerity with which they expressed their views. I hope that they will not question mine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch complained that the House had had insufficient time in which to consider the Measure. I would remind him that it was made available on 20th February—and today is 7th April. I should have thought that that was a reasonable period in which to consider the matter. I also thought that my hon. Friend went a little too far in appearing to impute motives to the Church Assembly—motives of kite flying, and so on—apparently for some further Measures which might come along later. I hardly think that that was fair, and I regret that my hon. Friend made those comments.
Both my hon. Friends implied that steps had been taken in certain places to introduce stone tables by an incumbent without anybody else knowing about it. I would remind them that in the vast majority of cases faculties had to be obtained before anything could be done. It was, therefore, not fair to suggest that there had been some sort of a hole-in-a-corner infringement which had struck a wedge into the door and had led to the introduction of other practices.

Captain Orr: Surely my hon. Friend will agree that the faculties were illegal?

Sir H. Oakshott: Yes. Strictly speaking I suppose they were, but I urge my hon. Friend to remember that this is a thing, and there are others in the Church of England, which has been recognised as an infringement for a long time indeed.
This leads me to the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr.

Fletcher). I urge hon. Members to have a spirit of tolerance in this matter. After all, if we are to get real unity in the Christian Church, which I hope and believe we all want, we must try to exercise a sense of tolerance. I hope that the House will try to accept that.
I wish to be brief, because I had not intended to intervene in the debate. I would not have done so but that I felt the necessity to add a few words to the appeal that has been made. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South referred to the Founder of Christianity and asked about the meaning of Holy Communion. I would humbly suggest that he should re-read the Sixth Chapter of Saint John, and that will tell him. I cannot believe that the Founder of whom he speaks really cares about the texture of the table, so long as people come to it.

Captain Orr: Before my hon. Friend sits down, perhaps I might be allowed to take him up on that remark. Does he imagine that the Founder would care what people wore, or would insist on their wearing a surplice? Would it not be thought that if tolerance is to be extended in one direction it ought to be extended in all directions?

Sir H. Oakshott: I am not wise enough to say what the Founder might have decided in a situation such as this, but I cannot imagine that the form meant as much to Him as did the spirit.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden: I assure the House that I bear no animosity at all towards my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), in whose sincerity I absolutely believe, but, with the greatest possible respect, I believe that they are doing an enormous disservice to the Christian religion in this debate.
I dare say that I am as good a Christian or as bad a Christian as either, but I do not care two hoots whether the table is of wood or stone or whether it is movable or immovable—and I do not care very much about surplices. Of course, I cannot say whether the Founder of the Christian religion would have done so—I would not presume to


do so—but I believe that, at this moment of time when the Christian religion is the subject of such attack from all quarters, my hon. Friends' arguments are just as irrelevant as were those of the early Christian Fathers who argued about how many angels could stand on the point of a pin. I therefore beg the House—and I am sorry to see that there are only two Opposition Members in their places—to pass this Measure.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I find myself very much in sympathy with the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I certainly do not support either the spirit or the terms of this Measure. It has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) that this Measure is but one of a series likely to come before the House over a period of weeks, months or even longer, and it strikes me as being somewhat unfortunate that Measures of this importance should appear in what, with great respect, I would suggest to be a most insidious form. Why cannot all these Measures be put quite clearly and bluntly before the House as a whole, for hon. Members to judge them as a composite whole, and not as a series of isolated fragments?
I am old-fashioned enough to believe in the principles of the Reformation, and for some time now it has been a cause of considerable anxiety to me to see the principles of that Reformation being the subject of quiet erosion—a phrase which, I fear, I must apply to this present Measure. I shall not engage in the doctrinal arguments that may or may not be involved in the question of a wooden Holy Table or a stone altar, but I must admit that, listening to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), I could not help thinking of the Oxford Movement of a century or so ago, and particularly of the semantic quibbling of Cardinal Newman in, I think, Tract 90. I felt that this was being very much manifested again in the hon. Gentleman's thought processes.
We hear a lot of talk these days about liberalising the Church of England; if this is a measure of liberalisation, I obviously completely misunderstand the meaning of the word. To me, this is a

reactionary gesture, putting the clock back—perhaps several centuries—and that is not in accordance with my understanding of liberalisation. Surely, the present trends are more akin to sacerdotalism rather than to liberalism.
The construction of the Holy Table, or its conversion into a stone structure is, in a sense, symptomatic of the recreation of the priestly caste. My hon. and gallant Friend dealt with the question of the stone altar, and the sacrificial connotation it may have, and I do not intend to repeat what he said. But is it not a sad reflection on the present course of ecclesiastical thinking that the time of the House should be occupied in resurrecting matters which one felt had been dispatched some four centuries ago?
One point has troubled me very much in my reading of the Measure. Who is to decide whether the altar be stone or wood, whether it be movable or immovable? Is it a decision for the bishop of the diocese, the vicar of the parish, or the parochial church council? I presume that it is the parochial church council but I should be glad to have some elucidation of the point.

11.46 p.m.

Sir Peter Agnew: It is perhaps significant that of the hon. Members who have spoken in the debate against the Measure two come from an island which is represented in the House and where, very understandably, those hon. Members find themselves almost defensively adopting an attitude which is as opposite as they can possibly make it to that branch of the spiritual Christian Communion which is not the Anglican Communion. They live in an island or represent part of an island where the great majority are Roman Catholics.

Captain Orr: Both of us happen to be Anglicans.

Sir P. Agnew: I appreciate that both my hon. Friends are themselves Anglicans, but nevertheless they live in and represent part of an island where the great majority of the inhabitants do not belong to the Anglican Communion. I sympathise with them. I understand and appreciate that defensively their attitude must inevitably swing as opposite to the idea of the Roman Catholic concept as it is possible for them to go. That is in the background of this debate.
This rigorous attitude which was debated at the time of the Reformation and before it resulted in the first instance in people being burned alive because of their religious views and, secondly, when they were not burned alive resulted in the passing of the most rigorous Acts of Parliament which prevented people taking up public positions in the life of the country. I believe that those days have gone. The spirit of the age is against rigourism, and I believe that what has been refuted as being liberalisation is precisely a liberalisation which is now taking place among Christian people everywhere. Now His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury visits the Pope in Rome. Now the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England accept invitations to preach in Methodist chapels. These are all signs of a new spirit. We should be going utterly against that spirit if we rejected this Measure tonight.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I must answer one or two points which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) has just made. I, like my other colleagues from Northern Ireland, belong to the Anglican Communion. Although, as the hon. Member rightly said, the majority of the inhabitants of part of the country are Roman Catholic, that does not in any way embitter us against them. This debate is not on whether we should go back to the Roman Catholic Church. We are merely debating the Motion that is before the House. As I see it, in my own humble way, the altar was part of the Old Testament; and when Our Lord died on the Cross, an event which we have just commemorated, the veil of the temple was rent in twain, and there is now no more need for sacrifice, because the sacrifice on the Cross was sufficient for the sins of the whole world.
Therefore, I appeal to my hon. Friend, whose sincerity I do not doubt in any way, to take this Measure back again,

and to consider it in the light of the Gospel and of our faith. If he were to do that, I am sure we would all support him in doing it.

11.51 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: When I came into the House tonight I had no intention of intervening in this debate, but in recent years I have had the privilege of going to Jerusalem and standing and living in the atmosphere in which our Christian faith was born. I was surprised when I went there to find on investigation that most of the Holy Places were in fact decreed by the wife of the Emperor Constantine 300 years after Jesus Christ had been crucified on the Cross. Therefore, in fact, so much of the ideology, the faith, we hold was produced much later than the events originally happened.
Dealing with the subject of the format of what we do in our churches and so on, it seems to me that today we are out of touch with the human aspirations of the public and of the people who, desirous of being Christian, are not desirous of being hidebound by ideology and wish to be Christian in the spirit rather than in the format. Therefore, when the argument arises as to whether the table for the Holy Communion should be of wood or of stone, it does seem to me that we are out of touch with modern ideology and out of touch, if I may say so, with the burning theme of the Founder of the Christian religion.
For these reasons, it does seem to me that so many of the arguments I have listened to since I came into the House tonight are in fact old-fashioned, out of touch, and I do support my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Sir H. Oakshott). I do not set myself up as a theologian in any way or form, but I think that the spirit behind the Christian religion is far more important than the format, and therefore I support the Motion which has been moved.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 6.

Division No. 58.]
AYES
[11.54 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Corfield, F. V.
Fletcher, Eric


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Gibson-Walt, David


Barter, John
Eden, Sir John
Glover, Sir Douglas


Batsford, Brian
Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Green, Alan


Bourne-Arton, A.
Farr, John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Braine, Bernard
Finlay, Graeme
Hendry, Forbes




Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Holland, Philip
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Peel, John
Walker, Peter


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Webster, David


Longden, Gilbert
Prior, J. M. L.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pym, Francis
Woodnutt, Mark


MacArthur, Ian
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Worsley, Marcus


McLaren, Martin
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)



Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Roots, William
Sir Hendrie Oakshott and


Mawby, Ray
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. van Straubenzee.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shaw, M.





NOES


Currie, C. B. H.
Page, John (Harrow, West)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gammons, Lady
Pounder, Rafton
Captain Orr and Mr. Cordle.


Maginnis, John E.
Stainton, Keith

HOSPITALS (NORTH WEST METROPOLITAN REGION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacArthur.]

12.2 a.m.

Mr. Philip Holland: In August 1963, the then Minister of Health asked the Metropolitan Regional Hospital Boards, in consultation with other bodies concerned, to define without delay the maternity catchment areas in the Greater London area and the group of maternity beds to serve them. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the phrase used
…in consultation with other bodies concerned…
for that is really the root of the point at issue.
It might be said, in a curious sense, that the North West Metropolitan Regional Board consulted with the other bodies concerned. Certainly all the evidence points to the board's diligence in seeking to ascertain which solution to the problem would be most universally opposed by all the bodies concerned with its implementation. Having done so, the board then decided that this was the solution to be imposed, explaining to the Minister that it had reached this conclusion
…in order to meet the comments of the other authorities which were consulted (local health authorities, executive councils and local medical committees).
This last piece of information is contained in a letter written to me by my right hon. Friend on 27th January, but I believe it to have been perhaps a little more than the truth. I will return to that later. Now I will briefly trace the history of the consultation. At the beginning

of November the secretary of the Central Middlesex Hospital Management Committee wrote to the board:
Central Middlesex Hospital has for nearly forty years been concerned with the maternity and gynaecological cases for the Borough of Acton, and I find it hard to imagine how the General Practitioners of Acton are going to react and cope with the prospect of having these problems disassociated as regards hospital treatment.
Perhaps I should explain what the proposals were. All maternity cases in the borough of Acton which have previously been dealt with by Central Middlesex Hospital, that is, certainly all those from the northern half of the borough, will in future be sent to Queen Charlotte's Maternity Hosptial. Apart from anything else, this will mean a change in the facilities available for Acton from a general hospital to a specialist hospital. Central Middlesex Hospital has a long tradition of service to the borough of Acton and is situated approximately in the middle of our northern boundary, while Queen Charlotte's Hospital is situated well outside Acton to the east of the borough's south-easternmost tip.
Clearly, an obvious result of this move will be difficulties in transport, which will mean for many of my constituents two buses or a bus and a train. Difficulties in transport arising from the change to Queen Charlotte's will tend to dissuade Actonians from attending regularly the prenatal clinics which are so important. Further, Central Middlesex Hospital is a large general hospital fully equipped to deal with any complications which might at any time arise during or after pregnancy, whereas Queen Charlotte's would not deal with complications during the first eight weeks of pregnancy; nor has it any interest in pædiatrics. Further


difficulties would arise if the maternity case also happened to be a diabetic or heart case, neither of which complaints can be dealt with at Queen Charlotte's.
I am also advised that while the Central Middlesex Hospital operates a highly efficient flying squad service should difficulties occur before the patient leaves home to go to hospital, Queen Charlotte's, on the other hand, relies to a very great extent on the general practitioner having all the necessary facilities available in the patient's home to deal with any complications arising prior to admission.
Differences in facilities apart, the forty-year history of association and co-operation between the general practitioners of Acton and the Central Middlesex Hospital has established a close working understanding between the two which should not be under-rated in terms of benefit to the patient. So much for the outline of the proposal and the immediate reaction to it.
The first meeting of the Liaison Committee for Area D, in which stands the Central Middlesex Hospital, was called by the regional board on Friday, 6th November. Without any prior notice, it was announced at this first fleeting that the board had decided to combine Area D with Barnet, Finchley and Hendon and other surrounding areas instead of, as hoped for, with Acton, Ealing and Southall. At this meeting considerable concern was expressed by many of the representatives at the definition of the new catchment area for the Central Middlesex Hospital and a very strong plea was made for associating Area D with Acton, Ealing and Southall. The regional board rejected this out of hand and refused to accept the valid points put forward to support this practical scheme.
At this point let me explain that under the regional board scheme the Central Middlesex Hospital becomes situated at the very southernmost tip of its catchment area, whereas under the proposal put forward at the meeting by other interested parties the hospital would be plumb in the middle of its catchment area.
An attempt to move the reference hack of the board's proposal, moved by a general practitioner who was present and supported by a large section of the meeting, was vetoed by the board's representatives, who stated

bluntly that their proposals must be brought into operation. Is this consultation? I regard it as dictation and I think that the regional board has been getting away with figurative murder for far too long. I have the strongest objection to seeing my constituents pushed around by a little band of bureaucratic Hitlers. Only after I had made the strongest representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister and raised the matter on the Floor of the House at Question Time on 24th February did the board concede the point that it would consider whether the small residential part of Acton close to the hospital could be served by it.
According to my electoral register this area houses 630 electors. Since it is estimated that 46,000 electors in the borough require an allocation of 36 maternity beds, one can assume that one maternity bed is allocated to an area housing 1,280 electors. On paper, and in theory, the board is generously considering whether it might, as a sop, offer half a maternity bed to Acton. I am not trying to be funny. It would obviously offer one bed for half a year, but in practice it would not work out as half a bed because this is one of the oldest parts of the borough and has a higher than average proportion of older people living there. Is this a concession to be taken seriously? Of course it is not.
During the course of the interview that I had with my right hon. Friend at the end of December, and subsequently in his letter of 27th February, he advised me that there was considerable concern over the growing practice of admitting patients late in labour through the emergency bed service. I have a proposal to make, which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to act on, which I believe would not only reverse this trend, but would receive the cooperation of the local general practitioners and would be acceptable both to the staff of the Central Middlesex Hospital and to the group hospital management committee.
My proposal is simply this, that emergencies should be directed to a specified catchment area hospital, but that freedom of choice should be allowed for patients prepared to book


a bed well in advance of their requirement. If this practice were followed, I believe that throughout the catchment area demand and supply might find a natural level. For example, Wembley patients in Area D booking in at Perivale maternity hospital would leave vacancies for Acton patients at the Central Middlesex Hospital, who, in turn, would leave vacanices at Queen Charlotte's for residents of Chiswick who live practically next door to the hospital, but who, under the new scheme, will have to travel miles to Sunbury.
According to the information given to my right hon. Friend by the board, the North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board has reached its decision after consultation with all other interested bodies, including representatives of the local general practitioners. This information given by the board to my right hon. Friend is completely false, for no one can describe the issue of an ultimatum, coupled with a complete refusal to accept even the smallest compromise, as consultation.
I think that it is fair to assert that the only body in favour of the board's proposal is the board itself. The proposal appears to be opposed by the doctors, by the hospital, by the hospital management committee, by the local health authority, and, as I understand it, by the county council health committee, but on this last point, as also on the attitude of Ealing to the plan, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) hopes to say a few words in the short time available if he is fortunate to catch the eye of the Chair when I resume my seat.
I urge my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend to have further consultation with the regional hospital board to see whether a new compromise solution can be worked out, perhaps along the lines that I have suggested this evening, to see whether more flexibility can be introduced into the plan so that a possible serious disruption in a most essential part of the Health Service in my constituency is avoided.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. John Barter: My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Holland) has set out the problem which

is the subject of this debate and has described the concern that has been aroused in Acton by the decision of the North West Regional Hospital Board with regard to the basis of allocation of maternity beds in that area. A similar situation exists in that part of Ealing which is affected by the proposal. My hon. Friend has requested that consideration be given to the allocation of maternity beds in consultation with the other bodies concerned. No sensible objection can be taken to this course of action. It appears, however, that the process of consultation which he described has been, in effect, less one of consultation than of information about the reaching of a virtually irrevocable decision.
This is the first basis of concern over the outcome of these proposals. The decision has been arrived at largely on the basis of the new borough boundaries, in so far as they can possibly be followed. Although one can appreciate that there may be many advantages in seeking to follow the new borough boundaries, which are possibly well designed for local government in the area, there is no doubt that these catchment areas would lead to areas which, for the purposes of hospital management, are much too large, and which are in no way related to the lines of communication between the proposed catchment area and the hospital.
Nor does the decision pay any regard to the traditional links established, in many cases over forty years, between the local public and the general practitioners and the hospital staffs. Our objections to the decision reached by the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board can be founded on two grounds; first, in respect of the actual decision reached, which can be proved to be unsatisfactory and inadequate for the purpose concerned and, secondly, in respect of the means by which the decision was reached—when the board sought to push forward its decision over people who were unwilling to accept it.
As my hon. Friend has said, it appears that the board is the only body of people that supports the proposed catchment areas. The area proposed has been opposed by all those who are expected to be responsible for administering the service in the future.

12.17 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernard Braine): I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter. It is obviously one of some concern to his constituents, and especially to young mothers, to doctors, and to the hospital and local authority staffs who serve them. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Barter) have made their points very clearly, and I will do my best to answer them.
As I understand it, my lion. Friends complain about two things; first, the arrangements made by the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board for the admission to hospital maternity beds in the area embracing their constituencies and, secondly, the way in which those arrangements were made. It might be helpful if I first sketch in the background to this matter. It is true that all four Metropolitan Regional Hospital Boards and the London Teaching Hospitals with maternity departments were required by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in August last year, to define areas for which an adequate number of beds could be grouped to serve the needs of maternity patients, but the Minister did not set out the way in which these areas were to be defined. The responsibility for this, rightly, was left to the regional hospital boards and the teaching hospitals. Indeed, the way in which the areas have been defined differs from one board to another. It is our view that this is properly a matter for their judgment, subject to there being effective consultation with the various interests concerned.
Here I should say something about the reasons underlying my right hon. Friend's action and the arrangements which the boards subsequently made. The hospital confinement rate for London is over 80 per cent.—one of the highest in the country—and for Middlesex well over the 70 per cent. recommended in the Cranbrook Report. That is not unexpected. It arises from the special circumstances that attach to the capital city and its suburbs. The birth rate has been rising, and it may rise still further. Nevertheless, it has been possible for virtually all mothers who needed them on medical and social grounds to have hospital confinements.
Additional beds have been provided, and are still being provided where the provision is inadequate—for example, in the region with which my hon. Friends are concerned, at the City of London Maternity Hospital and in Perivale. In the main, however, the peculiar difficulties which some mothers in Greater London have been experiencing in recent years in finding a hospital stem, not from inadequacy of provision, but from a certain maldistribution of beds which has come about for historical reasons. With population expansion taking place on the periphery and a high proportion of maternity beds in inner London, increasing numbers of expectant mothers have been uncertain until a late stage of their pregnancy about where their babies would be born. In fact three in every 100 who are eventually admitted do not know where they are going until the emergency bed service has arranged at the last moment for them to be sent as so-called emergencies to any hospital which can take them.
That was not a satisfactory state of affairs. Many of these confinements were not emergencies of the sort which the emergency bed service had been designed to deal with. In 1961 for example, for just over half the emergency bed service maternity admissions it was known quite early in pregnancy that a hospital bed would be needed although no booking was obtained at the time. We made strenuous efforts to overcome these difficulties but without success and obviously fresh action was called for. Boards were therefore asked to make special arrangements on the lines I have described. In each of the areas they defined they were asked to take the initiative in setting up a body representative of the hospital authorities, local health authorities, executive councils and local medical committees concerned, to co-ordinate administrative action. It was arranged that each of these bodies should agree and keep under review the procedures needed to secure that the maternity beds serving the area met the needs both for antenatal treatment and for confinements.
Here I want to stress an important fact. These bodies are expected to keep the procedures under review. The situation will clearly be influenced as new beds become available. I think it is important for all concerned to realise what


the real object of all this is. It is quite simply that for all mothers who are known to need hospital confinement there should be an end of uncertainty so that every one of them receiving ante-natal care from a general practitioner, a hospital or a local authority clinic should know as early as possible in her pregnancy where her confinement will take place. We feel that the underlying clauses of the situation being what they are the scheme on the lines I have outlined is the best way to meet the need. But these newly defined areas are in no way intended to be rigid. I assure my hon. Friends of that. Adjustments which seem sensible when all the circumstances are considered can of course be recommended in the continuous process of review. At the same time, if a hospital is able to accept a mother from outside its defined area there is no objection to its doing so provided it meets obligations to the mothers in its own area. It is the responsibility of the hospital to which any expectant mother from the area served by its group applies, or is referred, first to satisify itself without delay whether or not the delivery is indicated on medical or social grounds and then, as the case may be, either to make a firm booking, or to arrange a booking for her at another hospital in the group or in another group, or to refer her to her family doctor or the local authority clinic.
Now I come to my hon. Friend's charge that the North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board in making its plan did not adequately consult all those concerned. As I have explained they were responsible for making the plan and not the Ministry of Health. The board could have listened to everyone first and then drawn up a plan. They chose to act differently. They drafted a plan based on the new boroughs to be established by the London Government Act, 1963. They then sent their proposals to each local health authority, executive council, local medical committee, teaching hospital with maternity beds and hospital management committee concerned.
The local medical committee for the area with which my hon. Friends are concerned was the Middlesex Local Medical Committee. This committee represents the general practitioner interests, and it nominated representatives

to each area liaison committee in any part of Middlesex. In the case of Area III the general practitioners were from Harrow, Willesden, Finchley and Whetstone and in the case of Area IV—which includes Acton and Ealing—they were from Southall, Greenford, Hounslow and Sunbury. The method by which these representatives were selected by the local medical committee is not, of course, known. The meeting with the representatives for Area IV was held on 31st December.
Following the completion of the series of meetings, one with each committee, the board received a report and considered objections received from the Central Middlesex Group Hospital Management Committee and the Health and Maternity Services Liaison Committee (Central Middlesex Group) to the exclusion of the borough of Acton from the area to be served by the Central Middlesex Hospital. The board considered these but felt that their grouping produced as even a distribution of resources over the whole of the Greater London area, including beds in teaching hospitals, as was consistent with reasonably defined areas, and they were satisfied that the needs of the area as a whole could be most fairly met if Acton and Ealing were included in Area IV.
In fact, only 30 per cent. of maternity discharges of Acton mothers have been from the Central Middlesex Hospital. From a catchment area survey made by the board for the period 1st March to 31st May, 1963, it was clear that only a small proportion of maternity discharges of Ealing mothers is from the Central Middlesex Hospital. In that period there were 38, representing 5·3 per cent.
To include Acton, which is equivalent to a 36-maternity-bed need, in Area III, as was suggested, would require a comparable transfer of responsibility to another area, and no such transfer appeared to be feasible. Without such a transfer there would be a serious deficiency to the north and west of the area. But the pattern is not intended to be rigid, and a part of Acton lying close to the Central Middlesex Hospital has in face been included, as a result of further consideration, in Area The board fees that there should be no difference in the quality of service to


patients in the arrangements which have been made and that such rearrangements as are necessary in regard to travelling to the hospitals concerned are a relatively small price to pay in achieving the general intention. To show my hon. Friends that this is not a rigid scheme imposed by the board, I would instance discussions which I understand are even now going on about the Southall area.
There is also an aspect of the situation which perhaps has been overlooked, and I know that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I mention it. There will undoubtedly be advantages to Acton patients if they go to Queen Charlotte's Hospital. I understand that it is about the biggest maternity hospital in the country. It has a very fine reputation. At the moment all the domiciliary midwifery in the Acton area is undertaken by Queen Charlotte's midwives. Thus there could well be a better integration of the hospital and domiciliary services. Patients who have been booked for home confinement and then have to change their booking will already be known to the hospital staff, and, similarly, patients who do not need to stay in the hospital for the full ten days can be looked after by the midwives from Queen Charlotte's in their own homes. The object of the Health Service, and the Hospital Service

in particular, is to serve the patient, and I do not think that in these arrangements the patient's interest is harmed in any respect.
My hon. Friend suggested that only emergencies should be dealt with on the basis of these newly defined areas and that all other cases should be free to book where they like. That can be looked at, but I doubt whether it could be made to work, attractive as it may sound. If, after a while, the hospitals serving Area III—Paddington, Central Middlesex, Edgware and so on—are certain that they can meet their obligations and have some spare beds, there would be no objection to the slack being taken up by patients from elsewhere.
I wish, finally, to emphasise again that there is no intention that this should be a rigid scheme following fixed and immutable boundaries. I hope, having said that, that it will be worked sympathetically and with understanding by all concerned so that the constant review under which it is to be kept will be dispassionate. I assure my hon. Friends that in all this we have only one object in mind—to serve in the best possible way the mothers of this great Metropolis.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.